
Book -T Z- 
GopightN 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



OUR 

MISUNDERSTOOD 

BIBLE. 



OUR 

MISUNDERSTOOD 

BIBLE 



COMMON ERRORS 
ABOUT BIBLE TEXTS AND TRUTHS 



BY 

H. Clay Trumbull 

Author of 

"How to Deal with Doubts and Doubters;" 

'Prayer: Its Nature and Scope ; " " Illustrative Answers 

to Prayer ; " " Individual Work for 

Individuals," etc. 



PHILADELPHIA 

THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TIMES COMPANY 

1907 



_£ 



<£ 



A 



*£^<\ 



LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Cooies Received 

APR 27 1907 



7/ Copyright .Entry 
CLASS A XXc, No/ 

copy b: 




Copyright, 1907. by 
The Sunday School Times Company. 



PREFACE 

No book is, in its more important truths, easier 
to understand than the Bible. Yet, at the same 
time, no book has suffered more than the Bible 
from being misunderstood at important points, 
as well as in other particulars. Some of these 
misunderstandings are easily accounted for, and 
might be easily removed; others are not easily 
accounted for, yet have prevailed, without being 
accounted for, from generation to generation. 

There are many difficulties growing out of the 
radical differences between Oriental and Occi- 
dental methods of thought and speech, and cus- 
toms and practises. Even such terms as " love M 
and " hate " can hardly be comprehended by a 
Westerner, as an Easterner would employ them, 
and on such a difference as this two schools of 
theology might array themselves in determined 
and persistent opposition. Again, the Oriental 
method of poetic imagery in ordinary speech is 
well nigh incomprehensible to the Occidental, 
accustomed as he is to cling to the letter of the 
text that killeth, as over again the spirit of a 
figure or an illustration that would give life. 

There are many ideas about the Bible that 
generally prevail, without their having any basis 



ii Preface 

in the Bible itself. These erroneous ideas have 
even a stronger hold on Bible readers generally 
than the Bible text; and in pulpit and in pew 
they are taken for granted as if they had some 
truth in them. Thus it is often said, without any 
sufficient thought on the subject, that " Law pre- 
vails in the Old Testament," and that " Love pre- 
vails in the New Testament;" and again that 
" the Holy Spirit strives directly with the sinner 
to bring him to repentance." Again, there have 
been wrong uses of a word, through mistransla- 
tion, or through a misunderstanding of the tech- 
nical or the popular meaning of that word in 
former times, which tend to mislead the reader. 
Such is the term " be converted," instead of the 
simple term " turn." The Revisers have not 
been able to change all the ideas that had grown 
out of the error of their predecessors, by show- 
ing as they have that " be converted " is not a 
Bible term in the sense that it was long sup- 
posed to be. Again the term " cross-bearing " or 
" bearing the cross " cannot be made to conform 
to the truth without considering the meaning it 
had in New Testament times. What it is now 
generally supposed to mean is very far from its 
Bible meaning. 

" Perfection " and " sanctification " and " sacri- 
fice," and other Bible words, have one meaning 



Preface iii 

as they appear in the Bible, and a very different 
meaning as they are commonly understood in 
religious conversation or controversy. They 
often have a very good meaning even as popu- 
larly understood — or misunderstood. But the 
Bible meaning is really the best one, even though 
another meaning may be commonly preferred. 

Single Bible words, like " Mizpah," or 
" Angel," or " Cherubim,*-' or " Amen," are by 
many readers so misunderstood that they are a 
means of misleading than of rightly guiding those 
who would know and be helped by the truth. 

Having found the gain to himself, and to some 
others, in the added light on Bible terms and 
truths by these explanations and corrections, the 
writer presents the statements and suggestions 
herewith, hoping that they may help still others. 
Yet none of the views here expressed are to be 
accepted by a Bible reader unless he find them 
to be conformable to Bible teachings on his more 
careful study. But in any event good can hardly 
fail to come of readers being stimulated to a 
closer examination of the grounds for believing 
or of questioning as to the ideas they have been 
accustomed to connect with certain Bible words 
and terms and truths. 

Certain preliminary statements as to Bible 
teachings in general are given as precedent to a 



iv , Preface 

treatment of specific texts and truths. The value 
of these also will be found in their possible sug- 
gestiveness rather than in any dogmatic value. 

H. Ci<ay Trumbuu,. 
Philadelphia. 



CONTENTS 

I 

Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide . . 9 

II 
Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture . . 17 

III 
Understandest Thou What Thou Readest . . 23 

IV 
Principles Rather Than Rules in the Bible . . 30 

V 
Questions of Authorship Not Always Important . 40 

VI 
Ivove in the Old Testament, Law in the New . 47 

VII 

In His Name, Not for His Sake ... 65 

VIII 
The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 71 

IX 
Conversion Man's Responsibility Not God's . . 81 

X 

Needless W T orry as to being "Born Again" . . 90 

XI 
Is There Any Real Gain in Salvation . . 94 

v 



vi Contents 

XII 
Not a Duty To work Out One's Salvation . . 103 

XIII 
Sanctification, Not ^Sanctincation" . . . 108 

XIV 
Purity of Heart Not a State of Sinlessness . . 119 

XV 
Bible Perfection Not Sinlessness .... 125 

XVI 
Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self . . 130 

XVII 
Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses . . 137 

XVIII 
Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment . . 145 

XIX 

Ivove Not a Matter of Feeling .... 155 

XX 

Whom Does God I/)ve? . . . . . 164 

XXI 

Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed . 169 

XXII 
Bible Rest Not Inaction 210 

XXIII 
Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers . .217 



Contents vii 

XXIV 
Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers . . . 226 

XXV 

Chastisement Not Punishment . . . .235 

XXVI 

Mizpah: A Barrier Not a Bond . . . . 241 

XXVII 
The Inferiority of Angels 245 

XXVIII 
Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels .... 252 

XXIX 

Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence . . 260 

XXX 

What Will Satisfy Us When We Awake ? . .268 

XXXI 

The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again . 271 

XXXII 
11 Amen, and Amen" 280 

XXXIII 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth . . . .293 



I 

BIBLE WORDS NOT ALWAYS 
A SAFE GUIDE 

If one were seriously to ask the question, 
"Are Bible words always a safe guide to a 
reader?" many a Bible lover would reply 
promptly, and with positiveness, "Of course 
they are, and I am surprised to hear you ask 
such a question." Other Bible lovers, quite as 
intelligent and quite as reverent as those with 
whom they differ, might say, "It depends on 
whose words in the Bible you are speaking of 
as 'Bible words,' and how you understand those 
words. God's words are recorded in the Bible; 
so are the words of God's servants and messen- 
gers and prophets. Some of Satan's words 
are recorded in the Bible ; so are the words of 
Pharaoh and Jezebel, and others of God's ene- 
mies. It will not do to say sweepingly that all 
of the Bible words are a safe guide to all." 
Such a question about the Bible, and the whole 
subject it suggests, are worth careful consid- 
eration, in order that we may realize our duty 
and our privileges. 

Even when we are sure that we have the 

9 



10 Our Misunderstood Bible 

words of a chosen man of God, we may not be 
sure that we read, or use aright, or correctly 
understand, those words. We owe it to God, 
and we owe it to ourselves, to know as to this. 
Here is an illustration, for example, of Bible 
words misused in order to mislead. 

A mischievous young lad, of godly parents, 
was in the habit of being away from home much 
of the night, often not going to bed until day- 
light, or near it. His excellent grandmother, 
whose husband was a clergyman, expostulated 
with him, saying that night was the time for 
sleep, and days were for activity. 

"Why, grandmother," said the mischievous 
youngster, "the Bible teaches us quite the op- 
posite of that statement." 

"What makes you say that?" asked the sur- 
prised and shocked grandmother. 

At this the lad brought his grandmother the 
words of Paul to verify his assertion, and he 
added full notes (notes of his writing, not 
Paul's). His "text" was from I Thessalonians 5: 
6-8 : " Let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let 
us watch and be sober. For they that sleep 
sleep in the night; and they that are drunken 
are drunken in the night. But let us, since we 
are of the day, be sober." The young scapegrace 
said that in these teachings drunkenness and 



Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 1 1 

night-sleeping were classed together as mis- 
doing, while Christians were enjoined to watch 
in the night, and to be sober. He said that our 
world began in the better way. In Eden and 
in the beginning of earthly time "the evening 
and the morning" — not the morning and the 
evening, but the evening and the morning — 
"were the first day," and so on day after day. 
The sun guarded men in the daytime while they 
slept, and they could guard themselves nights, 
when they were about their business, as they 
ought to be. But in these later and more cor- 
rupt days many now slept nights, or were 
drunken nights. 

That good grandmother was not convinced by 
her grandson's use, or misuse, of Bible words; 
neither was she encouraged as to the helpful 
Bible study of that graceless youth. But he repre- 
sented, in his misuse of the Bible, a multitude of 
those who fail to get what the Bible could teach 
them, and others through them, even while 
they are becoming acquainted with Bible words. 

Indeed, any one familiar with the world's best 
books, whether those books be counted sacred 
or common, knows, or ought to know, that 
there is no other book in all the world so often 
and so shockingly misquoted as is the Bible. 
That statement is rather hard on the Bible — is 



12 Our Misunderstood Bible 

it not? Yet that it is a correct statement will 
be testified to by many who believe that the 
Bible is true, even while they often quote what 
is not true, thinking it is in the Bible. 

There are places in the Bible teachings, or 
in the Bible texts and words, where a truth is 
stated in two seemingly contradictory ways, when 
both are correct, yet where the truth as to this 
is not shown on the surface. One has to think 
and to study before he can explain or understand 
Bible words. And it is well that this is so, al- 
though the reader may not perceive this at first. 

For instance, one says that the Bible com- 
mand is: 

" Answer a fool according to his folly, 
Lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Prov. 26: 5). 

And the one who would follow this counsel al- 
ways tries to talk with fools in this way. "No," 
says another, "the Bible command is, 

" Answer not a fool according to his folly, 
Lest thou also be like unto him " (Prov. 26: 4). 

And he who would follow this instruction does 
not waste his time matching words with fools. 
As to the words in the Bible, both readers are 
correct, but neither Bible text is a positive com- 
mand. It is the reader's duty to find when the 
proverb, rather than a command, is in order, and 
this calls for study and a measure of wisdom. 



Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 13 

So in many another case, with Bible words in 

the Old Testament and in the New. 

"Bear ye one another's burdens" (Gal. 6: 2). 
"Each man shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6: 5). 

No book in the world is so safe a guide for any 
and for all as the Bible ; yet it is not enough to 
know the mere words of the Bible, if we would 
profit by this Book of books. It demands study, 
and a sincere, prayerful desire to learn its mean- 
ing. 

Blunders are often made through supposing 
that all the words of the Bible are to be taken 
literally, just as they stand, instead of being taken 
for what they evidently mean, in the light of their 
surroundings, and of the obvious purpose of 
their w r riter, and of the known spirit and teach- 
ings of Him who gave the Bible for the guidance 
of his children. 

If a man says that it is wrong to go into a grog- 
shop, or a saloon, or a bar-room, in order to res- 
cue or warn one whom he loves, or to reform 
others who are there, and whom he would lead 
into better paths, he would certainly not be justi- 
fied in this view by quoting the Bible words when 
they say: 

" Be not among winebibbers " (Prov. 2y. 20). 
Yet these words as they stand might seem to be 
a more sweeping condemnation than was often 



14 Our Misunderstood Bible 

made of poor Mrs. Nation and other "reformers" 
who spend so much time in disobeying the 
Bible, — if the Bible words are to be taken liter- 
ally. 

Most of us have heard, from childhood, the 
statement or declaration, as if from the Bible, 
"Spare the rod and spoil the child." As com- 
monly understood, this "text" is supposed to 
mean, or to teach, that a loving father or mother 
must now and then thrash or flog a boy or girl 
with a "rod" or a switch or a shingle or a strap. 
How many little creatures have suffered from 
the application of that "text," or of the "rod" 
spoken of in that text! And how many mis- 
guided parents have tried to comfort themselves, 
when causing their children to- suffer, with this 
idea, perhaps supposing that they obeyed God 
in this thing even if they never tried to obey 
God in anything else ! 

Yet there is no such injunction, or proverb, in 
the Bible as "Spare the rod and spoil the child." 
Perhaps the proverb that is as likely as any other 
to have been perverted into an encouragement to 
misguided parents to show their bad temper in 
this way is this : 

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son; 
But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." 

(Prov. 13: 24.) 



Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 15 

But this does not justify flogging a boy or a 
girl merely in order to show that that child is not 
hated. One meaning for the Bible word trans- 
lated "rod" is "scepter f it stands for "authority/' 
"rule," "government," "control." A parent is set 
of God to represent God in love toward his chil- 
dren. In this spirit a parent is to "chasten." To 
"chasten" is to train or to "bring up," not neces- 
sarily to flog or thrash. 

Other Bible texts have been as badly abused 
and misused as that text. Let us be sure, then, 
first, that a quoted "text" is in the Bible, and 
then that it means what it says, instead of some- 
thing very different, before we suppose that the 
Bible teaches what we infer from the familiar 
words. 

In saying or thinking that Bible teachings, or 
Bible statements, are contradictory, let us not be 
surprised that this can be so. Many of the les r 
sons of experience in our ordinary life course 
seem, or are, contradictory. Our greatest help 
often comes from our hindrances. Perhaps an 
obstacle in our way hinders our rapid descent 
down a steep hill, and thus helps us to safety and 
a fresh foothold. That which is our real grief 
to-day may be the cause of great gladness by and 
by. Our being brought lower in thought and 
spirit in the present may enable us to rise higher 



16 Our Misunderstood Bible 

in the future. Even a mere athlete stoops low 
as preparatory to his jumping high or to his leap- 
ing long. Indeed, there is hardly anything in a 
man's earthly experience that does not incident- 
ally call for, or cause, the opposite. 

Why, then, should we wonder that the best 
gold of Bible truths does not lie in open sight 
on the very surface ? We have to dig as for hid 
treasure if we would get that which we should 
and shall value most. We have reason therefore 
to thank God that his Word must be studied, and 
its meaning found out and pondered, by those 
who would have its full benefits. 



II 

HARMING 50ULS BY QUOTING 
SCRIPTURE 

Not only Bible words, but many other good 
things in use in daily life are liable to be mis- 
used, and so to harm instead of help. That 
which has power for good, if well used, is likely 
to have a corresponding power for evil if used 
unwisely. Its value depends on the skill and care 
displayed in its handling. A sharp carving knife, 
which in the hand of the head of the household 
may be a means of providing food for those who 
sit around the family table, may, in the hand of 
a little child or of a careless user, be a means of 
harm or of death to the one who has it in hand, 
or to those who are near him. As with mate- 
rial instruments, so with spiritual — their helpful- 
ness or harm pivots on their right using as surely 
as on their intrinsic worth. 

Thus, "the word of God is living, and active, 
and sharper than any two-edged sword, and pierc- 
ing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of 
both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the 
thoughts and intents of the heart." Yet the very 
writer who assures us of this great truth, speak- 



18 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ing for those who indite inspired Scripture, and 
of those who receive the message, says, as to the 
truth concerning Jesus Christ: "We have many 
things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing 
ye are become dull of hearing. For when by 
reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye 
have need again that some one teach you the 
rudiments of the first principles of the oracles 
of God; and are become such as have need of 
milk, and not of solid food." Hearers who are 
of an age or who are in a position where they 
"ought to be teachers'' often fail to perceive the 
difference between truths which are as milk for 
babes and those which are as solid food for full- 
grown men, and in consequence harm others by 
not "handling aright the word of truth" and 
giving proper portions for their nourishment and 
upbuilding. 

Even the wisest religious teachers may be a 
means of harming souls who are not sufficiently 
considered in the manner and matter of the truth 
presented to them. Peter and Paul were cer- 
tainly above the average as religious teachers, 
specially inspired for their exalted mission; but 
Peter says as to the epistles of Paul concerning 
Christ and his salvation : "Even as our beloved 
brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given 
to him, wrote unto you ; as also in all his epistles, 



Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture 19 

speaking in them of these things; wherein are 
some things hard to be understood, which the 
ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the 
other scriptures, unto their own destruction.'' 

What we call "Holy Scripture" or "Holy 
Bible" contains, as covering the pages and con- 
tents of our English Bible, words of truth and 
words of falsehood. This is not a matter of out- 
side opinion ; it is so declared in the Holy Bible 
itself, and it is to be recognized as the declara- 
tion of holy men who gave us this inestimable 
record. It is distinctly said in that record that 
certain words came from God, and that certain 
other words came from Satan, as illustrated in 
succeeding pages ; that certain words were 
spoken by men whom God approved and who 
spoke for God, and that certain other words were 
spoken by enemies of God, whose falsehoods and 
whose falsity God by his representatives pointed 
out. Who will dare to say, for one minute, that 
the words of God and the words of Satan are 
of equal worth, that there is to be no distinction 
between the declarations of evil men contrary to 
the principles of God's law, and the declarations 
of men who spoke for God on the basis of eternal 
principles disclosed by him? 

Paul, writing to Timothy as to the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures, which he had learned from his 



20 Our Misunderstood Bible 

childhood, says, "Every scripture inspired of 
God/' or, as many read it, "is inspired of God, is 
also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for cor- 
rection, for instruction which is in righteousness." 
That declaration of Paul's is true, as he meant it, 
and as he meant it to be understood ; but as it is 
often understood, or misunderstood, and is 
quoted, or misquoted, it is not true. If it be 
understood and quoted, as it often is, as meaning 
that every written word, including all the words 
of a certain version of the Sacred Scriptures, are 
equally true, even those words that God shows 
to be false, then that utterance of Paul is misun- 
derstood, misquoted and misapplied, and souls 
are harmed or imperiled by the act. And so of 
many another portion of Scripture. 

This is not merely a possible danger as to the 
use of Scripture, it is a very common and a very 
practical matter. The error of using Scripture 
words to the injury of precious souls by misun- 
derstanding and therefore by misusing them, is 
widespread among teachers of well-nigh every 
grade. It is to be noted in the Sunday-school 
teacher's chair, in the superintendent's desk, at 
the editor's table, in the clergyman's pulpit, in the 
evangelist's tent, in the place of the theological 
professor or the ecclesiastical delegate. It does 
not even seem to be generally guarded against by 



Harming 5ouIs by Quoting Scripture 21 

those who value most highly Bible words as their 
weapon of attack and defense. 

Many a man quotes from the book of Job as 
if its words were all true, because it is part of 
the Bible, without considering whether it is Job, 
or Eliphaz, or Bildad, or Zophar, or Elihu, or 
Satan, or God himself, who is the speaker. Simi- 
larly as to the book of Ecclesiastes ; often no 
difference seems to be noted between its passages 
of truth and those of avowed error. Words of 
the idolatrous Philistines are quoted as if they 
were the words of a prophet of Israel. So as to 
such texts as "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for 
a tooth ;" "Jehovah watch between me and thee, 
when we are absent one from another ;" "We all 
do fade as a leaf;" "Handle not, nor taste, nor 
touch (all which things are to perish with the 
using). " "If meat causeth my brother to stumble, 
I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not 
my brother to stumble." Such texts and others 
have been so often misused that many now do 
not have any idea of what is their true meaning. 
Every week, sermons are preached from texts 
misunderstood or misused by the preacher; and 
similarly in other spheres. Can Scripture be 
thus perverted without harm to hearers? 

In quoting a Bible text, the first thing to be 
considered is whether it is declared in the Bible 



22 Our Misunderstood Bible 

as true or as false ; and the next thing is to learn 
— not what it says, but — what it means. This 
often requires close study. When these two 
points are clear to the user's mind, it is time to 
consider, as then of chief importance, whether it 
is intended and fitted of God for application to 
those to whom the user has a message at this par- 
ticular time. How seldom all this is duly consid- 
ered in advance ! And how much harm is done, 
or risked, in consequence ! 



Ill 

"UNDLRSTANDL5T THOU WHAT 
THOU RLADLST?" 

It is one thing to read the Bible ; it is an- 
other thing to understand the Bible. Even 
though one has a reverent spirit, and a sincere 
desire to know the truth, as he reads in the Book 
of books, it does not follow that he will have an 
understanding of that which he reads. Knowl- 
edge is necessary in order to the gaining of 
knowledge. Study is essential to the acquire- 
ment of the results of study. Guidance from 
others is important, if we would be gainers from 
our own efforts in research. It is not enough to 
go to the Bible for instruction in that of which it 
treats. We must have knowledge outside of that 
which the Bible supplies, and help from outside 
of ourselves as earnest seekers after truth, if we 
would understand what we read and profit by 
our reading. 

A man high in authority in the court of Ethi- 
opia, and presumably of more than ordinary in- 
telligence, had journeyed from his country to 
Jerusalem in order to worship Jehovah, the God 

23 



24 Our Misunderstood Bible 

of gods and the Lord of lords, at the one proper 
house of worship. He was a student of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. He had some knowledge 
of the truth, and he wanted to have more. After 
enjoying the advantages of a visit to the Holy 
City, he was returning homeward. As he jour- 
neyed he read in the book of Isaiah. Philip the 
evangelist, a special messenger of God, guided 
by the Holy Spirit; joined the Ethiopian as he 
rode in his chariot, and his first question to him 
was: 

" Understandest thou what thou readest ? " 
(Acts 8: 30.) 

The intelligent and modest response of the 
Ethiopian courtier was : 

" How can I, except some one shall guide 
me?" 

And he there sought and received the help of 
Philip in his Bible reading. 

When two of the disciples of Jesus, better 
trained than the Ethiopian chamberlain, were 
wondering that their Master had submitted him- 
self to death, that Master joined them, as they 
walked in anxious thought, and, after reproach- 
ing them for their dulness in the comprehension 
of Bible truth, he became anew their teacher, 
" and beginning from Moses and from all the 
prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scrip- 



" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 25 

tures the things concerning himself." (Luke 
24: 27.) Then for the first time they under- 
stood what they had often read in the Bible with- 
out understanding. 

In the days of Jesus it was, as it is now, im- 
portant, not merely to know the words of the 
Bible, but to Understand what was meant by 
those words as used by Bible writers, and as in- 
tended to be understood by Bible readers. Such 
understanding calls for knowledge and study, as 
well as spiritual guidance. 

Bible words do not always mean just what 
they say, although Bible words always mean just 
what they mean. In reading Bible words it is, 
therefore, important for us to know just what 
those words mean, as well as just what those 
words say. When Jesus says, " The words that 
I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life," 
(John 6: 63) we know that he means just what 
he means, while he does not mean just what he 
says. His " words " are not themselves " spirit " 
or " life," although they be made the means of 
both spirit and life. So, again, when Jesus says 
concerning his betrayer, " Good were it for that 
man if he had not been born" (Mark 14: 21), we 
have no doubt as to what he means, but we do 
not claim that the utterance as it stands is liter- 
ally true. Of course it could not really be good 



26 Our Misunderstood Bible 

for a man, unless there was a man for it to be 
good for. 

Not all that is in the Bible is written because it 
is the truth. There are lies recorded there as 
lies, intended to be understood as lies ; yet many 
a time one of these lies is quoted as if it were 
the truth. A gentleman once said to the writer, 
in support of the idea that nothing is so precious 
to a man as his life :' 

"All that a man hath will he give for his life." 
(Job 2: 4.) 

" Where did you get that idea ? " said the 
writer. 

" From the Bible," was the answer. 

"Who said it?" 

" Really I don't remember." 

" Well, it was Satan who said it. It was a lie 
then, and it is a lie now. The Lord proved it 
was a lie ; and here you are quoting that old lie 
of Satan as if it were the truth, just because the 
words as you quote them are in the Bible." 

Yet that gentleman was not an ignoramus. He 
was one of the original International Lesson 
Committee, an exceptionally intelligent and care- 
ful Bible student. He simply illustrated in his 
course the liability there is of being deceived, or 
of being a means of deceiving others, by taking 
it for granted that all the words of the Bible are 



" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 27 

in themselves true, or are to be taken as meaning 
just what they say, or seem to say. 

While the Bible is from God, it was written by 
men in human language ; and men are dependent 
on their knowledge of human language for their 
knowledge of the truths which God would teach 
them through the Bible. Originally written in 
Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Greek, the Bible had to 
be translated into the vernacular of modern men 
in order to be understood by modern men. Every 
man needs help in the simplest reading of the 
Bible in his own language. As a child he has to 
be taught the meaning of Bible words in his ver- 
nacular; and in his maturity he needs fresh light 
on the significance and force of Bible terms that 
he has but partially apprehended hitherto. A 
man who called on Mr. Moody in his study was 
surprised to find some open volumes of commen- 
taries on his table. 

" What, Brother Moody, do you use com- 
mentaries ?" he asked. 

" Of course I do, " said Moody. 

" Well, I sha'n't enjoy your preaching so much, 
now. I thought you preached right from the 
Bible. " 

" Did you ever like my sermons ? " 

" Indeed I did. " 

" Then you liked Moody's commentaries." 



28 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Mr. Moody was shrewd enough to point out 
in this way that that hearer was helped to an 
understanding of what he read in the Bible by 
Mr. Moody, as every one must be helped by 
somebody in order to get the most and the best 
from the Bible. 

At the best, human language is imperfect and 
liable to various interpretations and consequent 
ambiguity and misunderstandings. Moreover, 
words are figurative rather than exact and defini- 
tive, and it is necessary to get at the truth by 
the living suggestions in language, instead of 
taking that language as finally conclusive in its 
dead literalness. This difficulty in the use of 
Bible language is increased, or intensified, by the 
fact that the Bible was primarily written by 
Easterns for Easterns; and that Easterns, by 
their very nature, are prone to speak in figures 
of speech as an appeal to the imagination. Yet 
all human language is, in a sense, figurative, and 
this fact must be borne in mind by one who would 
understand the meaning of words as he reads 
them. 

A scoffer was finding fault with Bible language 
because of its ambiguity, and claiming that relig- 
ious truth, like scientific truth, should be stated in 
exact terms that could never be misunderstood. 
Terms for color and shape, he said, could not 



" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 29 

have two or more meanings, and would be the 
same in the same language in all the passing 
centuries. His Christian opponent responded: 

" How would that be in a case like this : ' A 
blackberry is red when it is green/ Is there no 
ambiguity in the use of the terms for color 
there ? " 

Wherever human language is employed for the 
expression of truth, scientific, poetic, or religious, 
there are possibilities of misunderstanding by in- 
telligent hearers or readers, and these must be 
recognized and guarded against. 

" Understandest thou what thou readest ? " is 
a question that comes home with force to every 
one who looks to the Bible for instruction and 
guidance ; and the more intelligent the student of 
the Bible is, the more inclined he is to say, " How 
can I, except some one shall guide me ? " 



IV 



PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN RULES 
IN THE BIBLE 

A chief value of the Bible as a guide of human 
conduct is found in the fact that it is a book of 
vital principles, instead of being a book of rigid 
rules; that it indicates in its precepts the spirit 
that should influence us in all our actions, instead 
of declaring to us in specific injunctions the 
application of those principles in every imagin- 
able case. Yet it is just at this point that the 
Bible is misunderstood by many, and that many 
are perplexed by what seems to them a lack of 
explicitness in the divinely inspired teachings of 
the Bible. 

Men go to the Bible for rules of conduct, when 
they ought to go there for principles to guide 
them in framing rules. They find there a state- 
ment which is in the form of a rule, and they 
accept it as unqualifiedly binding on themselves 
and others for all time, when a closer study of 
its meanings would show that it was intended not 
as an invariable rule, but as an incidental illus- 
tration of a principle that is of unvarying appli- 
cation to all persons and all times. In this way 

30 



Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 31 

men are often misled by the letter of the Bible 
text, and fail to perceive the life-giving spirit of 
that text. 

In the Old Testament it is written : " Thou 
shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might ; " 
and again : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself. " In the New Testament these com- 
mandments are repeated in the same form ; and 
Jesus says of them : " On these two command- 
ments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." 
Yet these commandments are of small account as 
mere rules of conduct, while they are "exceed- 
ing broad " as principles to guide all conduct. 
They do not tell us what to do to show that we 
love God, or that we love our neighbor. They 
do give us a principle by which we can shape our 
actions towards God and towards man. We must, 
however, first know what love is, and then we 
must learn by study and thought what is required 
as an exhibit of love. 

He who really wants to know and to do just 
what is right in any given case, has the respon- 
sibility laid upon him of finding out for himself 
how the principle of these commandments bears 
upon that case, and then of acting accordingly. 
But if a man is puzzled to know whether love 
requires him to take the right hand or the left 



32 Our Misunderstood Bible 

when he meets a fellow-man on a narrow cross- 
ing in a muddy street, he will find no specific 
declaration on the subject in the pages of the 
entire Bible. The principles enunciated in the 
Bible ought to enable a man to see that it is his 
duty to conform to the well-defined current prac- 
tise in such -a matter and to concede to his 
fellow-man that portion of the pathway which 
custom or law declares to be his fellow-man's. 
But unless a man is willing to study out from 
Bible principles a rule that should guide him in 
the case, he must be so far without a rule that 
has the Bible sanction. And thus it is in all the 
range of human duty; the Bible enunciates the 
principle that ought in every case to be a man's 
standard of action, while it does not purpose to 
supply a man with a specific rule for every partic- 
ular case before him for decision. 

Although this is unmistakably the truth con- 
cerning the Bible, it is by no means generally 
recognized as the truth ; and because of the mis- 
conceptions of the purpose and methods of the 
Bible so far, men are constantly misleading them- 
selves in courses of conduct through their con- 
viction that the Bible does or does not specifically 
pass upon those courses of conduct for all time 
and for every person. They perceive, for example, 
that a certain course of conduct seems, at the 



Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 33 

present time, to tend to the injury of the one 
who pursues it, and of others who are affected by 
its influence. This causes them to ask whether 
or not the course be a sinful one. Going to the 
Bible with an idea that that is a book of specific 
rules of conduct, instead of a book of principles 
from which rules of conduct are to be deduced, 
they look for some explicit forbidding of the 
course in question, and, not finding that there, 
they decide that the conduct itself cannot prop- 
erly be counted sinful. Their mistake is not as 
to what is in the Bible, but as to what the' Bible 
is. They suppose the Bible to be a book of rules, 
when it really is a book of principles illustrated 
by historic applications of principles to particu- 
lar cases. 

A gentleman once challenged the writer to 
point to a single Bible text that forbade human 
slavery, or if he could not do so to admit that 
human slavery was in conformity with Bible 
teachings. Thus challenged, the writer replied: 

" I frankly confess that I cannot point to any 
Bible text which, taken as it stands in the obvious 
meaning attached to it by its writer, specifically 
forbids slavery, polygamy, or wine drinking. At 
the same time, I cannot point to any single Bible 
text which specifically commands any one of these 
practises. Therefore, as at present advised, and 



34 Our Misunderstood Bible 

in the light of gospel principles as I understand 
them, and in the exercise of a sound Christian 
discretion, I shall have but one wife, no negro, 
and drink cold water. " 

There was the argument in a nutshell as to the 
view of Bible texts as expressive of principles, or 
of rules. One man looked to the Bible as a mere 
book of rules ; the other looked to it as a thesau- 
rus of principles, from which rules were to be 
deduced for the guidance of conduct from time 
to time. 

It is true that the New Testament (Col. 3: 
22) says explicitly: "Servants [the Greek is 
bond-servant or slave] obey in all things them 
that are your masters, according to the flesh/' 
and that slaves were exhorted to be in subjection 
to their own masters. But that was simply the 
enunciation of a principle which is to guide all 
Christians in their relations to those having 
authority over them. It is not a rule which en- 
joins the practise of human slavery at all times. 
It is true that a proverb in use in Solomon's day 
says : " Look not thou upon the wine when it is 
red," but that is no more binding as an invariable 
rule for all men everywhere, than the other 
proverb : " Go to the ant, thou sluggard." It 
does not mean it is safe to drink wine with your 
eyes shut. It does mean that if you want to be 



Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 35 

clear of danger from wine, you will do well to let 
it alone, without even looking towards it in its 
attractiveness. It is true that office bearers in the 
church were required to have only one wife ; but 
that does not mean that laymen holding no offi- 
cial position were to have more than one wife. 
The principle enunciated in that command was 
that in a polygamous community no man who 
indulged in polgyamy was to be chosen for an 
office in the Christian church. 

An eminent and highly honored bishop of the 
Church of England said, in an address on the 
subject of betting and gambling, in the presence 
of the clergy of his diocese : " There is no sin 
in racing or betting, any more than there is sin in 
drinking; excessive betting is sin, just as exces- 
sive drinking is sin." Then, as showing how he 
arrived at this conclusion, he added : u If a man 
says, ' I will bet you £5 that it will not rain to- 
morrow, ' I think it would take a long time to 
prove from the Bible that that man was guilty of 
a sin. " The trouble with the learned bishop in 
this case was not so much in his view of betting 
as in his view of the Bible. He seemed to sup- 
pose that unless a perilous practise is specifically 
condemned in the Bible, it cannot be reckoned 
a sinful practise ; whereas the principles enunci- 
ated in the Bible are sufficiently comprehensive 



36 Our Misunderstood Bible 

and clear to prove that it may be sinful for us to 
indulge in a perilous practise which is not in itself 
a sin. 

The Bible does not declare cabbage-eating to 
be a sin ; but if, during a season of cholera, or at 
any other time, a man's physician should tell him 
that for him to eat cabbage would be sheer sui- 
cide, does it need any proof-text from the Bible 
to show that cabbage-eating by that man would 
be sinful ? The Bible would exhibit to that man 
the principle by which his conduct should be 
guided, but it would give him no explicit rule as 
to cabbage-eating. Even if he were to find in the 
Bible narrative that patriarchs, prophets, and 
apostles had eaten cabbage freely, that fact would 
not make it any the less sinful for him to eat 
cabbage in the face of its probable consequences 
to him and to his. And it matters not whether 
the illustration be taken from the cabbage- 
garden, the orchard, or the vineyard. 

If, indeed, the Bible is properly reckoned as 
a book in which are to be found explicit rules of 
conduct in every emergency, it would seem to be 
strangely incomplete in its categories of good and 
evil performances. What Bible texts explicitly 
forbid the counterfeiting of government money, 
the forging of another's name, the cutting of 
public telegraph wires, the distilling of whisky 



Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 37 

without a permit from the authorities, the 
" watering " of the capital stock of the company 
which one controls or of the milk which one 
offers for sale ? There is a great deal of down- 
right rascality current in the community at the 
present day which can be shown to be immoral 
and sinful by a reference to the principles enunci- 
ated in the Bible, but which is not declared to be 
a sin by any specific rule of the Bible text. And 
this is because the Bible is a book of principles 
instead of a book of rules. 

A denomination of Christians which is very 
rigid in its practises, and very literal in its inter- 
pretation of Bible texts, was called on at one of 
its formal conferences to declare whether bicycle 
riding was allowable for its members. Turning 
to the Bible, with the belief that a specific rule 
must be found applicable for every such case it 
actually gave utterance to the decision that bicycle 
riding was improper for Christian believers, be- 
cause of its undoubted popularity ; " for that 
which is highly esteemed among men is an 
abomination in the sight of God." 

It is true that the ancient Levitical law included 
a great number of specific rules of conduct, as 
illustrative of the application of the great prin- 
ciples of the Bible to everyday life in all its de- 
tails ; but those rules were for a single people and 



38 Our Misunderstood Bible 

for a limited period, and their purpose was rather 
to show how Bible principles might apply to all 
human practise, than to indicate the only lines of 
human practise in which Bible principles were to 
find their application. 

There is a decided unwillingness in the popular 
mind, and indeed in many a professional mind, 
to accept this view of the Bible as the correct 
view; for it would be so much easier to learn 
one's duty without the study of principles than 
it is to study in order to this learning, that it 
seems to the average man that if the Bible is 
good for anything as a guide of conduct, it must 
be as a book of rules rather than as a book of 
principles. What a relief it would be to most 
minds to have a Bible that would tell a man 
specifically just what is right, and just what is 
wrong, in every imaginable crisis of affairs ; just 
what he may do, and just what he must not do, 
in every sphere of human conduct ! 

If only the Bible were thus divinely arranged, 
and a full index of subjects were added to it, how 
simple would be the matter of learning one's duty 
in life ! Any one could turn to the topics in the 
Bible index and learn for himself the right or 
wrong of a mooted question. " Backgammon, " 
" Betting, " " Bicycles, " " Billiards, " " Cards, " 
" Church Fairs, " " Cider, " " Civil Service Re- 



Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 39 

form/' " Dancing," "Free Trade," " Gam- 
bling," " Golf," " Grab Bags," " Horse Racing," 
and so on all the way down to " Operas," " Pool 
Rooms, " " Prohibition, " " Theater-going, " 
" Unf ermented Wine, " and " Woman's Suf- 
frage. " A mere child could find the references 
when the index showed the page of the rule in 
the premises. This would seem to the average 
mind, such a gain over the tedious process of 
hunting out the Bible principle involved, and 
then studying over its application to the case in 
question ! There is a difference in these two 
ways ; but the one way is that which man would 
prefer, while the other is that which God sees 
to be best. 



QUESTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP NOT 
ALWAYS IMPORTANT 

Who wrote a document is sometimes deemed 
all-important in considering its value ; and again 
it is not so deemed* If it is a promissory note, 
the personality of the signer is counted the chief 
thing in an estimate of its pecuniary worth. If 
it is a last will and testament, it pivots entirely 
on the authenticity of the signature. On the 
other hand, when one reads on a public guide- 
post a direction to a village or city which he 
desires to reach, he is more interested in the 
direction than in the question of its authorship. 
If he is a sensible man, he usually takes it for 
granted that the guide-post was set up by some 
one who knew the road, and who desired to help 
seekers of that place, and the traveler is likely to 
keep on his course, nothing doubting. 

Yet there have been misplaced guide-posts and 
deceived travelers. It is possible that this guide- 
post was erected in ignorance, or with a desire 
to mislead and deceive, and that he who follows 
its directions will go astray. If one stops to 
think, he has to consider these truths ; and of 

40 



Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 41 

those who do think, nine hundred and ninety-nine 
persons out of every one thousand cannot have 
positive evidence of the authority and knowledge 
and right purpose of the original writer of the 
time-worn guide-post which has led successive 
generations of travelers on their way. They 
must take it for granted that those who went 
before them, following the directions on the 
guide-post as it stands, were on the right track, 
and can be imitated prudently. 

If a man who was crossing a desert plain, and 
thirsted for water, were to come to a finger-post 
pointing to a tempting hollow just beyond the 
ordinary pathway, with the words, " To an ever- 
flowing spring, " what would be thought of that 
man if he were to fail to turn towards that spot, 
because he did not know who wrote those direc- 
tions, and he was unwilling to follow an unknown 
guide ? Suppose, further, that that man had 
been told by different travelers over that same 
road that they had turned to that spring and 
been refreshed, and that, although they were not 
sure who wrote it originally, they could testify 
to the accuracy of the direction, — suppose that 
that man still refused to turn to the spring be- 
cause of the lack of evidence of authorship, and 
famished at the foot of the finger-post, waiting 
for further evidence ! Would not the universal 



42 Our Misunderstood Bible 

verdict be that his foolish questioning had been 
his deserved destruction ? 

Is there nothing of this sort in the sphere 
of intellectual or of spiritual life ? Are we sure 
of the hand that inscribed all the directions on 
the guide-posts along the way of life in the 
books of Holy Scripture? Or is a knowledge 
of that hand comparable in importance with 
the directions found there? Would it not be 
folly to refuse to heed those directions which 
have guided generation after generation of 
seekers of the way and the water of life, be- 
cause there is fair question as to the hand that 
first inscribed those directions? 

Many Bible scholars spend much precious 
time in discussing questions as to the propor- 
tion of the first five books of the Old Testament 
actually written by Moses, or of the number 
of Psalms written by David. And yet, as show- 
ing that these questions are not of chief im- 
portance, the most positive of such scholars do 
not claim to know who was the author of such 
books as Judges, and Kings, and Chronicles, 
and Ruth, and Esther, and Job, and Daniel, 
even while they admit the importance of the 
truths recorded in those books. 

No book of the Old Testament canon is of 
more importance and value, as bearing on the 



Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 43 

coming of the Messiah as recorded in the New 
Testament, than the book of Malachi. Yet just 
who wrote the book of Malachi neither Jewish 
nor Christian scholars have claimed to know. 
All that we can be confident of is that the name 
of its writer was not "Malachi." "Malachi " rep- 
resents the writer's office or mission, but not 
his name. Yet of what supreme importance to 
the race have been the directions on the Mala- 
chi guide-post, pointing out the coming of the 
Messiah as the world's Saviour. Would it not 
indeed be folly to refuse to heed the pointing 
of that spiritual finger-post because its inscriber 
is not known, while the verity of its inscription 
has been proved by the test of two thousand 
years ? 

Take again, for instance, a single illustration 
of methods in New Testament criticism. Do not 
some thirsty, groping travelers hesitate to follow 
the directions given in what is commonly known 
as the Fourth Gospel, because they are not 
entirely certain as to its original authorship, and 
are unwilling to follow an unknown guide ? There 
is more spiritual help proffered in that one book 
than in any other of the Bible, from Genesis to 
Revelation. All that is in the other books of the 
Bible has added light thrown on it through the 
words of that one book. More persons testify to 



44 Our Misunderstood Bible 

the surpassing help given to those who follow 
these teachings than do as to any other portion 
of the Bible. Yet there are those who actually 
famish for spiritual refreshing, and who grope 
in spiritual darkness, because they are not quite 
sure as to the authorship of the Gospel, and are 
unwilling to receive the Water of Life, and to 
walk in the Light of Life, until they have more 
evidence as to the authorship of the book. Is 
not this strange ? 

An exceptionally intelligent student who had 
come to accept the general views of Darwin and 
Huxley and Spencer, and who called himself an 
agnostic, was familiar with the strongest writ- 
ings of those of that school. But one day he 
thought he would look fairly at what was called 
the strongest presentation of the Christian side 
of truth, and he took up the Fourth Gospel, and 
read it through from beginning to end. He sim- 
ply took it as a book, aside from any outside 
evidence as to its authenticity. When he had 
read it through, he said to himself : 

" The One of whom that story tells either is 
the Saviour of the world or ought to be." 

Because of what that book told him of that 
Person, he was ready to heed the call of that 
Person when he said : 

" If any man thirst, let him come unto me and 



Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 45 

drink, " and again, " I am the light of the world : 
he that followeth me shall not walk in the dark- 
ness, but shall have the light of life. " 

Because of thus reading that book, instead of 
waiting for outside evidence of its authorship, 
that true scholar is a follower of the Light of the 
World, pointing others to the finger-post that 
indicates the direction out of the shadow into the 
sun. 

That is the way it has been with many a trained 
scholar and honest inquirer. Similarly it is with 
those of humbler and more simple minds. When 
Bishop Patteson began his work among the sav- 
ages of the islands of Melanesia, he wasted no 
time in teaching the early history of the human 
race, and the progress and development of relig- 
ious doctrine. He began at once with the simple 
yet profound teachings of the Fourth Gospel as it 
stands in our Bibles, and his success evidenced 
the correctness of his method. 

For eighteen centuries the children of men and 
the children of God who have followed the point- 
ing of that spiritual finger-post, have walked in 
the unfading light, and have been refreshed at 
the Fountain that satisfies all thirst. None who 
would consent to be thus guided have ever been 
led astray. The spiritual history of our race has 
been shaped by the teachings of that book as by 



46 Our Misunderstood Bible 

no other book, human or divine. Why should 
any hesitate or doubt because of subordinate 
questions of authorship, when the internal evi- 
dence of truth in the book is so strong, and so 
many generations have followed safely the way 
it points out ? 

What shall we say of the poor doubters who 
famish at the foot of the spiritual finger-post, 
straining their weak eyes to discover whether 
there be not some reason to believe that certain 
letters of the inscription show a later date or 
another artist than the alleged author of the direc- 
tion ? " Lord, open their eyes, that they may 
see. n 



VI 

LOVE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
LAW IN THE NEW 

" Law is the religion of the Old Testament, 
Love is the religion of the New. " That is a 
popular idea, among Christians, as to the Bible 
and its teachings. The idea is proclaimed in this 
form of statement in pulpit and in press so fre- 
quently, if not so generally, that very many accept 
it as not to be questioned or qualified. Yet it 
might, with equal fairness and propriety, be 
asserted that " Love is the religion of the Old 
Testament, and Law is the religion of the New. " 
Both statements are true in a sense : neither state- 
ment is complete by itself, or as ordinarily under- 
stood. In God's government, and in God's revela- 
tion of himself, love is in all his law, and all his 
law is in love. Whoever fails to recognize this 
truth, fails to understand the Bible as a revelation 
of God, in both the Old Testament and the New. 
If, indeed, it could be shown that the New Tes- 
tament is not consistent with the Old, and that it 
presents God as of a different spirit from that in 
which he is revealed in the earlier disclosures of 
himself to man, it would be necessary to accept 

47 



48 Our Misunderstood Bible 

one of these Testaments as true, and to reject the 
other as not true. If it could be shown that Jesus 
Christ was not a manifestation of God as God 
was from the beginning, then either God or Jesus 
Christ would have to be accepted as the object of 
worship and of confidence, as the other could not 
be ; for " God is not a God of confusion, but of 
peace, " — or of unity. If the claims of Chris- 
tianity be urged as those of a new religion, with 
no place in the world's history prior to twenty 
centuries ago, they bear no comparison with the 
claims of Christianity as the flower and fruit of 
Judaism, rooted in the love of God to man, as 
shown in law and promise and guard and guid- 
ance in all the centuries told of, from Adam to 
Abraham, from Abraham to Judas Maccabeus, 
and again from John the Baptist to John the 
Apocalyptist. 

That love is only, or primarily, or mainly, of 
the New Testament, in contrast with the Old, is 
a comparatively modern error, widespread 
though it be to-day. It did not come from a 
careful study of the teachings, nor from an 
apprehension of the spirit, of the Old Testament. 
It was not taught by Jesus or his apostles. It is 
not a declaration of the New Testament. It was 
not presented as the view of the early Christian 
teachers. St. Augustine, for instance, distinctly 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 49 

affirmed the opposite. He said, " If . . . all 
divine Scripture, which was written aforetime [in 
the Old Testament], was written with a view of 
presignifying the Lord's advent ; and if whatever 
has been committed to writing in times subsequent 
to these, and established by divine authority [in 
the New Testament], is a record of Christ, and 
admonishes us of love, it is manifest that on those 
two commandments of love to God and love to 
man hang not only all the law and the prophets, 
which at the time when the Lord spoke to that 
effect were as yet the only Holy Scripture, but 
also all those books of the divine literature which 
have been written at a later period for our health, 
and consigned to remembrance. Wherefore, in 
the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, 
and in the New Testament there is a revealing 
of the Old. " Love is in law, and there is law in 
love. Or, as Browning phrases it, by the lips 
of David as foreseeing the greater Son of David : 

" I report, as a man may of God's work, — all's love, 
yet all's law." 

When God manifested himself to his people 

Israel at Sinai, with lightnings and thunderings 

and the voice of a trumpet and the smoking of 

the mountain, and when the people were 

affrighted, and stood afar off, Moses bade them 

fear not, for God had come, not for their punish- 



50 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ment, but for their good. At that time God made 
a covenant of love with his people, and the Ten 
Words of that loving covenant, not the Ten Com- 
mandments of an arbitrary law as we are accus- 
tomed to consider them, were written on two 
stone tablets, to be kept in a casket, or the " Ark 
of the Covenant, " as a permanent memorial. 
That the Israelites understood love to be at the 
basis of this law, or this covenant, was shown in 
the fact that when the law was rewritten, or 
repeated, in Deuteronomy, the sum of the law 
was given in this form : 

" Hear, O Israel : Jehovah our God is one Je- 
hovah : and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 
thy might. And these words, which I command 
thee this day, shall be upon thy heart: and thou 
shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and 
shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy 
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and 
when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy 
hand, and they shall be for frontlets between 
thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the 
door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates " 
(Deut. 6: 4-9). 

This summary or substance of the Covenant of 
Love between God and his people was inscribed 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 51 

on the " mezuzah " attached to the door frame of 
every pious Jew's home, as it was also written in 
the phylacteries bound on the forehead and on 
the hand of the stricter Jew. As it was in more 
ancient times, so it was in the days of Jesus, and 
so it is to-day. It was in the very heart of the 
Levitical law that it was also commanded, " Thou 
shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart," " but 
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself " (Lev. 
19: 17, 18). And that both an enemy and a 
stranger were to be included in the scope of 
neighborly love was shown by the Mosaic injunc- 
tions, " One law shall be to him that is home- 
born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth 
among you" (Exod. 12: 49); "The stranger 
that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the 
homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him 
as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of 
Egypt" (Lev. 19: 34); "If thou meet thine 
enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt 
surely bring it back to him again" (Exod. 23: 
4, 5). It is in the Proverbs of old that we read, 

44 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; 
And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: 
For thou wilt heap coals of fire upon his head, 
And Jehovah will reward thee" 

(Prov. 25: 21, 22). 

These teachings are not first found in the Ser- 



52 Our Misunderstood Bible 

mon on the Mount, or in the other words of 
Jesus, or of his disciples, but in the Old Testa- 
ment. Is there not love in the religion which 
enjoins them? When Jesus declared that an- 
other religion than his was taught by "them of 
old time/' he did not refer to the writers of the 
Old Testament, but to the popular commenta- 
tors of a later time — who had perverted the 
meaning of the love-filled law. 

When Jesus asked a questioning Jewish 
teacher of the law what he understood to be the 
main requirements of the law, the teacher 
promptly replied, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. ,, 
(Luke 10: 2j.) Jesus then said unto him, 
" Thou hast answered right : this do, and thou 
shalt live/' On another occasion Jesus himself 
cited as correct the Old Testament teaching of 
God's requirement, in answer to a Jewish scribe's 
question as to what was duty. This scribe, 
speaking as one well instructed in the truths of 
the Old Testament, replied, "Of a truth, 
Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one ; and 
there is none other but he ; and to love him with 
all the heart, and with all the understanding, and 
with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as 
himself, is much more than all whole burnt offer- 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 53 

ings and sacrifices " (Mark 12: 32, 33). The 
comment of Jesus on that answer was, " Thou 
art not far from the kingdom of God." Jesus 
saw love in the Old Testament ; so did that Jew- 
ish scribe. 

It is true that there was progress in the dis- 
closure of God's love according as man was 
capable of comprehending its fulness, its ten- 
derness, and its limitless scope; but in the ear- 
liest ages man was shown that God was actuated 
by love for him in all his dealings with him. As 
soon as man felt his need of forgiveness and 
salvation, God promised to open a way of restor- 
ation for him (Gen. 3: 15). Just because Abra- 
ham was willing to trust God utterly, God called 
him his " friend/' and treated him accordingly 
(Gen. 12: 1-4; 15: 1-6; 18: 17-19; 2 Chron. 
20: 7). This was long before the day of Moses 
at Sinai. Afterward God told Israel tenderly 
of his love for that people : " Jehovah did not 
set his love upon you, nor choose you, because 
ye were more in number than any people ; for ye 
were the fewest of all peoples ; but because Jeho- 
vah loveth you. . . . And he will love 
thee" (Deut. 7: 7, 8, 13). God's love for man 
was not because of man's lovableness, but be- 
cause of God's lovingness. Love, and mercy, 
and compassion, and tenderness, are in the dif- 



54 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ferent books of the Old Testament, from Genesis 
to Malachi. 

The Psalms are tremulous with these feelings : 

" For my father and my mother have forsaken me, 
But Jehovah will take me up" (Psa 2J: 10). 

"Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid 
up for them that fear thee, 
Which thou hast wrought for them that take refuge 
in thee, before 1 the sons of men !" 

(Psa. 31: 19.) 

" O God, thou art my God ; earnestly will I seek thee : 
My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee, 
In a dry and weary land, where no water is. . . . 
Because thy lovingkindness is better than life; 
My lips shall praise thee" (Psa. 63: 1, 3). 

"Jehovah is merciful and gracious, 
Slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness. . . . 
He hath not dealt with us after our sins, 
Nor rewarded us after our iniquities. . . . 
As far as the east is from the west, 
So far hath he removed our transgressions from us. 
Like as a father pitieth his children, 
So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him" (Psa. 103: 
8, 10, 12, 13). 
"Oh that men would praise Jehovah for his loving- 
kindness, 
And for his wonderful works to the children of men!" 
(Psa. 107: 15.) 

" Oh give thanks unto Jehovah ; for he is good : 
For his lovingkindness endureth for ever " 

(Psa. 118: 1). 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 55 

Isaiah, whose prophecies are the gospel of the 
Old Testament, repeats and carries on this 
strain : " Thus saith Jehovah, . . . Fear 
not, for I have redeemed thee ; I have called 
thee by thy name, thou art mine. When thou 
passest through the waters, I will be with thee ; 
and through the rivers, they shall not overflow 
thee : when thou walkest through the fire, thou 
shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle 
upon thee. For I am Jehovah thy God, the 
Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour " (Isa. 43: 1-3). 
" Can a woman forget her sucking child, that 
she should not have compassion on the son of 
her womb ? Yea, these may forget, yet will not 
I forget thee " (Isa. 49: 15). "As one whom 
his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you " 
(Isa. 66: 13). Not to sons of Abraham, or to 
children of Israel, alone, is God thus a loving and 
tender Father, in the thought of the Evangelical 
Prophet. " For thou art our Father, though 
Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not 
acknowledge us : thou, O Jehovah, art our 
Father ; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy 
name " (Isa. 63: 16). 

Thus with the later prophets also. How God 
pleads in tireless love with his disobedient chil- 
dren ! " Wilt thou not from this time cry unto 
me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth?" 



56 Our Misunderstood Bible 

(Jer. 3:4). "I have loved thee with an ever- 
lasting love : therefore with lovingkindness have 
I drawn thee" (Jer. 31: 3). "Ye my sheep, 
the sheep of my pasture, are men, and I am your 
God, saith the Lord Jehovah" (Ezek. 34: 31). 
" I will say to them which were not my people, 
Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou 
art my God " (Has. 2: 23). "Jehovah thy God 
is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will 
save; he will rejoice over thee with joy: he will 
rest in his love; he will joy over thee with sing- 
ing" (Zeph. 3: 17). "He that toucheth you 
toucheth the apple of his eye " (Zech. 2:8). "I 
have loved you, saith Jehovah. Yet ye say, 
Wherein hast thou loved us?" (Mai. 1: 2). 
" Have we not all one father? Hath not one God 
created us?" (Mai. 2: 10). "Then they that 
feared the Lord spake one with another; and 
the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of 
remembrance was written before him, for them 
that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his 
name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord 
of hosts, in the day that I do make, even a pecu- 
liar treasure ; and I will spare them, as a man 
spareth his own son that serveth him" (Mai. 3: 

16, 17). 

Who shall say that in the Old Testament love 
is not more prominent than law? Of course, 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 57 

there is law, and the exhibit of the consequences 
of its violation, in the Old Testament, as again 
in the New ; but in the Old Testament, as in the 
New, there is shown love as back of all law, as 
evidenced in all law, and as promising redemp- 
tion from the consequences of law violated by 
unloving man. 

On the other hand, does not the law show itself 
in the New Testament, as binding in love on all 
of God's children? It is so emphasized by Jesus 
Christ, and so taught by his followers from Mat- 
thew to Paul. What more emphatic expres- 
sion of the obligations of the law is found in all 
the Old Testament than in the words of Jesus 
in what is called the " Sermon on the Mount," — 
not of Mt. Sinai, but of the mountain of Galilee : 
" Think not that I came to destroy the law or 
the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to ful- 
fil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and 
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass away from the law, till all things be 
accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break 
one of these least commandments, and shall 
teach men so, shall be called least in the king- 
dom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and 
teach them, he shall be called great in the king- 
dom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except 
your righteousness shall exceed the righteous- 



58 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no 
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 
5: 17-20). "Not every one that saith unto me, 
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
who is in heaven" (Matt. 7: 21). Again 
Jesus said : " The scribes and the Pharisees sit 
on Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever 
they bid you, these do and observe ; but do not 
ye after their works ; for they say, and do not " 
(Matt. 23:2, 3). 

It is Jesus who foretells the future punish- 
ment of evil-doers, the violators of God's laws 
and commandments. There are no such pic- 
tures of future judgment and of hell for the 
disobedient, in the Old Testament, as Jesus gives 
in the New. " The Son of man shall send forth, 
his angels, and they shall gather out of his king- 
dom all things that cause stumbling, and them 
that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the 
furnace of fire : there shall be the weeping and 
the gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13: 41, 42). 
" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, 
and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on 
the throne of his glory : and before him shall be 
gathered all the nations : and he shall separate 
them one from another, as the shepherd sepa- 
rateth the sheep from the goats ; and he shall set 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 59 

the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the 
left. . . . Then shall he say . . . unto them 
on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into the eternal fire which is prepared for the 
devil and his angels. . . . Inasmuch as ye 
did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not 
unto me. And these shall go away into eternal, 
punishment " (Matt. 25: 31-46). "That serv- 
ant, who knew his lord's will, and made not 
ready, nor did according to his will, shall be 
beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew not, 
and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten 
with few stripes " (Luke 12: 47). 

This is taught not only in the earlier words 
of Jesus, but in his later words also ; not alone 
to the Jewish multitudes, but to the inner circle 
of his disciple friends. It was on the night of 
his betrayal that he said to those dearest to him, 
"If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. ,, 
" He *that hath my commandments, and keepeth 
them, he it is that loveth me." " If a man love 
me, he will keep my word [my commandments] : 
and my Father will love him. . . . He that 
loveth me not keepeth not my words : and the 
word [the commandment] which ye hear is not 
mine, but the Father's who sent me " (John 14: 
15, 21, 23, 24). And again, "If ye keep my 
commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even 



60 Our Misunderstood Bible 

as I have kept my Father's commandments, and 
abide in his love." " Ye are my friends, if ye 
do the things which I command you " (John 15 : 
10, 14). Here is law as well as love; love shown 
in the giving and in the keeping of law. 

The disciples of Jesus gave prominence to the 
observance of law as the proof of love, as the 
evidence of faith.. Paul, who extolled faith as 
a means of salvation, by no means ignored or 
undervalued the demands of law. On the con- 
trary, he says, " Do we then make the law of 
none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, 
we establish the law" (Rom. 3: 31). He speaks, 
moreover, of the "day of wrath and revelation 
of the righteous judgment of God; who will ren- 
der to every man according to his works : . . . 
unto them that . . . obey not the truth, but 
obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indig- 
nation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul 
of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and 
also of the Greek; but glory and honor and 
peace to every man that worketh good, to the 
Jews first, and also to the Greek ; for there is no 
respect of persons with God" (Rom. 2: 5-11). 

Again he says : " We must all be made mani- 
fest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that 
each one may receive the things done in the body, 
according to what he hath done, whether it be 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 61 

good or bad. Knowing therefore the fear of 
the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5: 10, 11). 
"At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from 
heaven with the angels of his power in flaming 
fire, rendering vengeance to them that know 
not God, and to them that obey not the gospel 
of our Lord Jesus : who shall suffer punishment, 
even eternal destruction from the face of the 
Lord and from the glory of his might, when he 
shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be 
marveled at in all them that believed ... in 
that day" (2 Thess. 1 : 7-10). 

James says : " Faith apart from works is bar- 
ren ; " " Ye see that by works a man is justified, 
and not only by faith. . . . For as the body 
apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart 
from works is dead " (Jas. 2 : 20, 24, 26). Peter 
says : " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the 
godly out of temptation, and to keep the unright- 
eous under punishment unto the day of judg- 
ment " (2 Pet. 2:9). John, the apostle of love, 
says : " Hereby know we that we know him, if 
we keep his commandments. He that saith, I 
know him, and keepeth not his commandments, 
is a liar, and the truth is not in him " ( 1 John 2 : 
3, 4). "He that doeth righteousness is right- 
eous, even as he [God] is righteous; he that 
doeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 3: 7, 8). 



62 Our Misunderstood Bible 

" This is the love of God, that we keep his com- 
mandments : and his commandments are not 
grievous " (i John 5:3). "This is love, that 
we should walk after his commandments. This 
is the commandment, even as ye heard from the 
beginning, that ye should walk in it " (2 John 6). 
It is in John's book of Revelation that we re- 
peatedly find the figure of the lake of fire burn- 
ing with brimstone, as a place of punishment for 
the disobedient, and all the opposers of God, who 
maketh the law (Rev. 14: 9, 10; 19: 20; 21 : 8). 
Who will say, then, that there is no law in the 
New Testament and in its religion ? 

Love and law are in the Old Testament; law 
and love are in the New. That " God is love ; 
and [that] he that abideth in love abideth in God, 
and God abideth in him" (1 John 4: 16), — is 
not a truth of the New Testament, and the New 
Covenant, alone; it was in the Old Testament, 
or the Old Covenant, also. God was always in 
Christ, and God always bore for man the love 
which showed itself in Christ as the manifesta- 
tion of God's love for man. " Before Abraham 
was born, I am," said Jesus to the Jews (John 8: 
58). " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
day ; and he saw it, and was glad " (John 8 : 56) . 
God spoke out of the thunderings of Mt. Sinai, 
telling of his love unto the thousandth genera- 



Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 63 

tion of those who would love him and keep his 
commandments (Exod. 20: 6). Prophet, and 
psalmist, and scribe, and apostle, alike recognized 
love as the prompting and requirement of law, 
Godward and manward. " Will Jehovah be 
pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thou- 
sands of rivers of oil? . . . What doth Je- 
hovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to 
love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy 
God? " said Micah (Micah 6: 7, 8). The Psalm- 
ist says : 

" It is time for Jehovah to work ; 
For they have made void thy law. 
Therefore I love thy commandments 
Above gold, yea, above fine gold. 
Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning 
all things to be right" (Psa. 119: 126-12S). 

Said the Jewish scribe, " To love him [the 
Lord thy God] with all the heart, and with all 
the understanding, and with all the strength, and 
to love his neighbor as himself, is much more 
than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices " 
(Mark 12: 33). The Apostle Paul sums up the 
whole matter in the words : "He that loveth his 
neighbor hath fulfilled the law. . . . Love 
worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is 
the fulfilment of the law " (Rom. 13: 8, 10). 

Mere obedience to law could not save a man. 



64 Cur Misunderstood Bible 

God never taught that it could. Man never had 
reason to think that it could. Love was shown 
in God's laws ; love prompted man to doing 
as the loving God wanted done ; love trusted God 
beyond all sight and proof. In the Old Testa- 
ment this was taught in precept and in promise. 
In the New Testament it was taught in fresh 
prominence and power, by the crowning evidence 
of God's love, and the addition of a new motive 
for man's recognition of it, in the gift of Jesus 
Christ as the Son of God and the Son of man. 
Sovereign and Saviour. " God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
but have eternal life" (John 3: 16). "Herein 
is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also 
ought to love one another" (1 John 4: 10, II). 



VII 

IN HIS NAME, NOT FOR HIS SAKE 

A Christian believer is specifically assured that 
he can come to God " in the name of " Jesus. 
No such assurance is given him, in the Bible, 
that he will have his prayers answered " for the 
sake of " Jesus. Yet the phrase " for Christ's 
sake," or " for His sake," is even more com- 
monly used in modern prayers than "in Christ's 
name," or " in His name." What is the reason 
for this ? Is the error a common one of suppos- 
ing that " in His name " means the same as " for 
His sake " ? Or is there no particular thought 
in the ordinary mind as to the meaning of either 
phrase? It certainly is too important a matter 
not to be well understood and carefully consid- 
ered. 

Jesus said to his disciples, when he was to 
leave them for a season, as to his return by the 
Holy Spirit, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If 
ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give 
it you [who are] in my name. Hitherto ye have 
asked nothing in my name: [now] ask, and ye 
shall receive, that your joy may be made full 
(John 16: 23, 24)." "Whatsoever ye shall ask 
in my name, that will I do, that the Father may 

65 



66 Our Misunderstood Bible 

be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask me any- 
thing in my name, that will I do " (John 14: 13). 
" In that day ye shall know that I am in my 
Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14 : 
20.) What is here meant by "in my name" ? 
What, indeed, is one's " name " as the term is 
used in the Bible, in the Old Testament and the 
New, and in primitive thought and customs gen- 
erally ? 

One's " name," as thus spoken of, is not a mere 
designation, or label; it is one's truest self, or 
personality. It enwraps one's very being as a 
covering and protection, as the flag of one's 
country enwraps and shields its every citizen 
when endangered. Thus " the name of Jehovah 
is a strong tower : the righteous runneth into it, 
and is safe." (Prov. 18: 10.) It was while 
enclosed in that name that David confidently met 
Goliath, and vanquished him. David said, " Thou 
comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, 
and with a javelin : but I come to thee [enclosed] 
in the name of the Jehovah of hosts, the God of 
the armies of Israel, which thou hast defied." 
(1 Sam. 17: 45). Similarly, one who is in Christ 
is sure of acceptance with Christ and with God, 
as being in the common name, or personality, of 
the Father, of the Son, and of the disciple; or, 
as Jesus expresses it, " I am in my Father, and 



In His Name, Not for His 5ake 67 

ye in me, and I in you " (John 14: 20). That 
is being " in His name," living " in His name," 
praying " in His name." 

In this view of the truth, it is not the mention 
of the name of Jesus, but it is the being in the 
name of Jesus, that gives one acceptance with 
Jesus and with the Father. Indeed, it would 
perhaps better convey to many the idea of the 
promise, as Jesus gave it to his disciples, if the 
clauses in our English translation were arranged 
differently, without in any degree doing violence 
to them : " If ye [being] in my name, shall ask 
me anything, that will I do" (John 14: 14). 
" Whatsoever ye [being] in my name, shall 
ask, that will I do" (John 14: 13). 

Thus Jesus communes with his Father con- 
cerning the Name that is his, and his Father's, 
and in which he desires to have his disciples 
kept: "Holy Father, keep them in thy Name, 
which thou hast given me [that is, keep in 
thy Name, them which thou hast given me], that 
they may [in thy Name] be one, even as we 
are [one]. While I was with them [here in the 
flesh] I kept them in thy Name. . . . But 
now I come to thee" (John 17: 11-13). And, 
therefore, Jesus confidently commends to his 
Father's keeping all his who are in that Holy 
Name. 



68 Our Misunderstood Bible 

The Revision has made some changes that 
bring out the truth more clearly. For instance, 
the King James version had it, at Acts 4: 12, 
"There is none other name under heaven given 
among men whereby we must be saved." The 
Revision more correctly renders this : " Neither 
is there any other name under heaven, that is 
given among men, wherein we must be saved." 
This shows the difference — "wherein," not 
"whereby." 

How different is this idea from the one that 
might seem to be conveyed in the common con- 
clusion to a prayer, " All this we ask in the name 
of Jesus Christ our Saviour," as though we, the 
petitioners, were apart from the one prayed to, 
and not one with him and in him; he in the 
Father, and we in him, and he in us. No one 
who feels that he is in Christ — enclosed in 
Christ's name — one with the Father in Christ, 
ought to address God as though he were apart 
from him, not privileged to come to him freely, 
trustfully, making known his needs and desires. 

For Christ's sake, for the Lord's sake, for 
Jesus' sake, for the gospel's sake, for the truth's 
sake, and other such phrases — those are very 
different terms. If they are used in prayer, they 
ought to be used intelligently. Where such 
terms are employed in the New Testament, the 



In His Name, Not for His Sake 69 

context plainly shows their meaning. " Blessed 
are ye when men shall reproach you, and perse- 
cute you, and say all manner of evil against you 
falsely, for my sake " (Matt. 5:11). "In their 
synagogues they will scourge you; yea and be- 
fore governors and kings shall ye be brought 
for my sake " (Matt. 10: 17). " He that loseth 
his life for my sake shall find it " (Matt. 10: 32). 
"We are fools for Christ's sake" (1 Cor. 4: 
10). It is evident what such phrases mean. 
" For the sake of " Christ is for the cause of 
Christ. One can ask help " for the sake of n 
Christ when he feels that his cause is identified 
with Christ as over against Christ's enemies, and 
that to give help to the petitioner is to win honor 
to Christ's cause. 

In the Old Testament times, Jehovah was said 
to have set his name in the tabernacle, or in the 
temple, as the central place of his worship. In 
view of this fact, Jerusalem and the Jewish na- 
tion could ask for protection for his " name's 
sake," because his honor was supposed to be 
involved in the protection of that place and peo- 
ple. But this was obviously on God's own ac- 
count that he was to act, and not on account of 
the people petitioning for help. For "his sake," 
or for " his name's sake," was a direct petition 
for God's own glory, not for a reflected glory 



70 Our Misunderstood Bible 

accruing to his people because of their appeal 
to him, or their dependence on him. 

As Christ's disciples, we are authorized to be 
in his name, to speak in his name, to ask in his 
name, confidently, nothing doubting. All our 
prayers ought to be while we are in his name, 
whether his name be mentioned or not. There 
are special occasions, conditions, and circum- 
stances, when it would be manifestly proper for 
us to ask help from God for Christ's sake. In 
such cases, we ought to pray understanding^, 
as realizing our peculiar reason for thus praying. 
But we ought not to fall into the common error 
of supposing that " in His name " is in any sense 
identical with " for His sake." 



VIII 

THE HOLY SPIRITS MISSION TO AND 
THROUGH BELIEVERS 

In the popular thought of Christians, an im- 
portant mission of the Holy Spirit is in arresting 
the attention of unbelievers, striving with those 
who are out of Christ, bringing sinners under 
conviction of sin, and converting or regenerating 
the ungodly. Yet there is little, if anything, in 
the New Testament to justify this belief, or to 
lead one to suppose that the mission of the Holy 
Spirit is directly to any who are not already dis- 
ciples of Jesus. 

As to the Holy Spirit's work and workings, 
the New Testament teachings, both in precept 
and illustration, are explicit and uniform. The 
Holy Spirit dwells with, and abides in, believers 
in Jesus, having no immediate communication 
with unbelievers. Whatever mission to the 
ungodly the Holy Spirit has, is exercised medi- 
ately through believers, not immediately on the 
unbeliever. This truth is of main importance to 
the believer, who so often fails to perceive it, 
and hence to avail himself of the power await- 
ing his acceptance of it; while the consequences 

71 



72 Our Misunderstood Bible 

of the believer's failure to recognize it are mo- 
mentous to unbelievers who are neglected on 
account of this error. 

It is in, and by, and through the Holy Spirit's 
power, that believers in Jesus can know the 
truth, can proclaim the truth effectively, or can 
influence in favor of the truth any unbeliever to 
whom they are sent, or in whose behalf they 
labor and pray. It is by and through the agency 
of believers who are in the power of the Holy 
Spirit that any unbeliever is attracted to the 
truth, or is shown his sinfulness, or is won to 
the loving service of Jesus. The trusting be- 
liever in Jesus is, as it were, the agent, the in- 
strument, the avenue, of the Holy Spirit, in be- 
half of the outside world ; and the Holy Spirit is 
the supreme source of all knowledge and power 
and practical efficiency on the part of the trust- 
ing believer in Jesus, both in that believer's 
personal attainment and in his evangelistic en- 
deavor in the world. On all these points the 
New Testament teachings would seem to be 
unqualified and unmistakable. 

Jesus promised to his disciples an unfailing 
supply of the satisfying water of life, for them- 
selves and for others. " This spake he of the 
Spirit, which they that believed on him were to 
receive" (John 7, 39), not, as so many would 



The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 73 

seem to read the promise, " This spake he of 
the Spirit, by which they that receive were to be 
made believers in him." Again he said : " I will 
pray the Father, and he shall give you [my dis- 
ciples] another Comforter, that he may be with 
you for ever, even the Spirit of truth : whom the 
world [the outside unbelievers] cannot receive ; 
for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: 
ye know him ; for he abideth with you, and shall 
be in you " (John 14: 16, 17). As to the source 
of all power to his disciples in their witnessing 
for him, Jesus said specifically to those disciples, 
at the very time of his ascension : " Ye shall re- 
ceive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon 
you: and [in that power] ye shall be my wit- 
nesses . . . unto the uttermost part of the 
earth" (Acts 1:8). In fulfilment of these 
promises of Jesus, the Holy Spirit came upon his 
disciples at the following day of Pentecost, and 
those disciples were thenceforward " filled with 
joy and with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 13 : 52) ; 
as it is the privilege of every disciple of Jesus 
to be, at the present time, and until the coming 
again of Jesus. 

This truth the disciples understood and illus- 
trated in all their teaching and in all their toil- 
ings. When Peter was first preaching in the 
power of the Holy Spirit, and his sin-convicted 



74 Our Misunderstood Bible 

hearers asked what was their duty, in view of 
their transgression and its consequences, " Peter 
said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the 
remission of your sins; and ye [also] shall re- 
ceive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2: 38). 
He did not say, " Receive ye the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, and then you may be baptized as disci- 
ples of Jesus Christ." Again, when standing be- 
fore the Jewish council, Peter and his fellow- 
apostles testified of Jesus as the crucified and 
risen Saviour, saying : " And we are witnesses 
of these things ; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom 
God hath given to them that obey him " (Acts 5 : 
32) ; not, " God causes to obey him those who 
have the gift of the Holy Spirit." The apostles 
and other disciples were " all filled with the Holy 
Spirit" (Acts 2:4). Peter, as a preacher, was 
" filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 4:8). Ste- 
phen, as a preacher, was " full of faith and of 
the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6: 5). Barnabas, as a 
preacher, was " full of the Holy Spirit and of 
faith " (Acts 11 : 24). Paul, as a preacher, was 
" filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 13 : 9). The 
entire church in all Judsea and Galilee and Sa- 
maria was edified and was multiplied when it was 
" walking in the fear of the Lord and in the com- 
fort of the Holy Spirit " (Acts 9: 31). 



The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 75 

When the prayers and alms of the Gentile Cor- 
nelius had come up to God acceptably, and God 
had sent an angel messenger to direct Cornelius 
as to his duty, it was not until Peter, himself a 
man already in the power of the Holy Spirit, 
was present to proclaim to Cornelius and his 
fellow-hearers the truth concerning Jesus as 
the Saviour of sinners, that " the Holy Spirit 
fell on all them which heard the word." Even 
when Jesus himself met Saul the persecutor, on 
the road to Damascus, and summoned him to his 
service, it was not until three days were passed 
that Saul received the Holy Spirit ; and then that 
blessing came to him in the appointed way 
through Ananias, who before this was a disciple 
of Jesus. Saul's conversion was not by the Holy 
Spirit, but through the presence and voice of 
Jesus. Then Saul was a subject for the Holy 
Spirit's mission through a Spirit-endowed be- 
liever in Jesus. Afterwards Paul found a dozen 
disciples or so in Ephesus, who were apparently 
in the state in which he had been in that three 
days' interval of darkness before Ananias was 
brought to him. " Did ye receive the Holy 
Spirit when ye believed ? " asked Paul of these 
men. " And they said unto him, Nay, we did 
not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was 
[yet] given." Then he laid his hands on those 



76 Our Misunderstood Bible 

believers, and " the Holy Spirit came on them " 
(Acts 19: 2, 6) also. 

It was apparently in this view of the order of 
the Holy Spirit's workings, and of the scope of 
the Holy Spirit's work, that Paul wrote to be- 
lieving disciples in Galatia and in Rome : " Be- 
cause ye are sons [of God], God sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, 
Father " (Gal. 4:6). "The fruit of the Spirit 
[in the hearts of believers] is love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
meekness, self-control " (Gal. 5 : 22, 23) — all the 
Christian graces, in fact. " If [therefore] we 
[disciples] live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us 
[as disciples] also walk" (Gal. 5: 25). "For 
we know not [even] how to pray as we ought; 
but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us 
with groanings which cannot be uttered; and 
he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the 
mind of the Spirit [in our behalf], because he 
maketh intercession for the saints according to 
the will of God" (Rom. 8: 26, 27). And so 
throughout the teachings of Paul and of the 
other New Testament writers. 

It is a strange fact, that, notwithstanding the 
explicitness and uniformity of the New Testa- 
ment teachings on this subject, there is a wide- 
spread popular opinion that the Holy Spirit's 



The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 77 

work is directly and immediately on or in the 
heart of the unbeliever, without the intervention 
or agency of the Christian believer. To hear 
what is said in the sermons, or sung in the 
hymns, or prayed in the prayers, of many Chris- 
tians, one might believe that the Holy Spirit is 
sent directly to the unbelieving sinner, to strive 
with him, to show him his sin, and to point him 
to the Saviour ; and that therefore the Christian 
preacher or teacher has rather to wait the results 
of this work of the Spirit, than to be the instru- 
ment or the avenue of this work. Many a Chris- 
tian seems to think that the Holy Spirit's work 
is that of a revival preacher, in moving sinners 
to repentance by a direct appeal to their con- 
sciences and understandings, instead of stirring 
up Christians to appeal, in the power of the 
Spirit, to unbelievers to believe and to turn to 
God. 

It would almost seem as if Christians thought 
that preachers and teachers, at home or abroad, 
were not a necessity, in the declared plan of 
God's working, in order to the Holy Spirit's 
evangelizing of the world ; that, in fact, the Holy 
Spirit — in the present dispensation — would be 
just as likely to reach sinners without the inter- 
vention of Christian believers as with them. That 
this error of opinion has no basis in the teach- 



78 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ings of the Bible, does not, certainly, make it any 
the less dangerous in its practical influence ; nor 
does this lack of foundation seem to hinder its 
acceptance by many a professed student of the 
Bible. 

There would even seem to be more reason- 
ableness in the high ecclesiastical view that the 
Holy Spirit abides in, and works through, the col- 
lective church alone, for the winning of sinners 
and the saving of souls, than for the unbib- 
lical view, so common among Protestant Chris- 
tians, that the Holy Spirit works in and on the 
hearts of the ungodly for their winning to Christ. 
There is no justification in the New Testament 
text for the claim that the Holy Spirit operates 
directly upon the sinner to induce him to believe 
in Jesus or to commit himself to him. 

It is true that, in this present dispensation of 
the Spirit, all power in the evangelizing of the 
world, and in the swaying of the hearts of men 
towards Christ and in the service of Christ, is pri- 
marily with the Holy Spirit. But it is also true 
that the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible 
teachings, works in and by and through believers 
in Jesus. Hence if one who is not a believer in 
Jesus is to be won to discipleship, the question is 
not, Will the Holy Spirit work on his mind im- 
mediately ; or will the Holy Spirit work through 



The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 79 

one who already believes? for that question the 
Bible has already answered. The question would 
rather seem to be, By which disciple of Jesus is 
the Holy Spirit to work for the winning of this 
sinner to the loving service of the Saviour? If 
indeed a sinner be won through the Bible itself, 
that is really being won through the believer who 
wrote that portion of the Bible. The Holy 
Spirit can use the written words, like the spoken 
words, of a chosen messenger of God to an un- 
believing soul. But in every case the Spirit 
reaches the believer mediately, not immediately. 
If the power of the Holy Spirit's drawing 
were to be likened, for a mere figure of speech, 
to magnetic attraction, the disciple through whom 
the Holy Spirit w r orks would be the already mag- 
netized piece of steel, and the outside sinner 
would be the bit of iron in its natural state. The 
natural iron is not moved by itself or in its own 
power, neither is it, in the present course of 
things, reached directly by the primitive lode- 
stone ; but it is by means of the magnetized steel 
that this iron is now lifted and drawn in the di- 
rection of the Polar Star of the universe. The 
power is the mysterious magnetic attraction, but 
the method of that attraction's working is 
through the magnetized steel that was once a 
bit of impotent iron. So it is with him that is 



80 Our Misunderstood Bible 

won of the Spirit, or by whom the Spirit wins, 
in the plan of God's working. 

If Christians generally would but realize this 
truth concerning the mission and workings of 
the Holy Spirit, what an added sense of respon- 
sibility would rest on them, as the chosen instru- 
ments and avenues of the Holy Spirit's power in 
their sphere of labor and of influence ! Without 
the Holy Spirit's power no Christian can pray 
aright, or study aright, or teach aright, or live 
aright. And unless Christians are ready, as the 
believing disciples of Jesus, filled with the Holy 
Spirit, for the declaring of the truth impres- 
sively to outside sinners, the one agency which 
God chooses to honor for the reaching of those 
sinners is lacking — because of the unreadiness 
of believers. 

Sinners will not, it is true, be drawn to Jesus 
unless the Holy Spirit draws them ; but we have 
no reason to suppose that the Holy Spirit 
will draw sinners to Jesus except through 
believers in Jesus ; for this is the dis- 
closed plan and order of the Holy Spirit's work- 
ing in this present world of ours. This is the 
Bible teaching, even if it be not the common 
Christian idea. 



IX 



CONVERSION MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY, 
NOT GOD'S 

As a natural consequence of the common mis- 
understanding of the mission and work of the 
Holy Spirit, there is a widespread popular feeling 
that sinners are converted from their evil course 
to the service of God, rather than that they them- 
selves turn to God, when they see it to be their 
duty to do so. The incorrect language of our 
ordinary English Bible, in referring to this act 
or process of conversion, has been a fruitful 
cause of this misconception. 

In our old version it would appear that Jesus 
said to his disciples, " Except ye be converted, 
and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
into the kingdom of heaven n (Matt. 18: 3). But 
in the new, and more correct, version it reads, 
" Except ye turn, and become as little children, 
ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of 
heaven/' In our old version, again, Jesus is said 
to have counseled Peter, in view of his coming 
denial and repentance, " When thou art con- 
verted, strengthen thy brethren " (Luke 22: 32). 
But the new version gives it thus : " When once 

81 



82 Our Misunderstood Bible 

thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." 
According to the old version, Peter preached, 
after the day of Pentecost, to the people in the 
temple courts : " Repent ye therefore, and be con- 
verted, that your sins may be blotted out." Ac- 
cording to our new version, Peter's call was : 
" Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your 
sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19). 

These differences in the two versions, in their 
teachings on this point, represent fairly well the 
difference between the popular idea of "conver- 
sion," and the Bible idea of it. The popular 
thought is that conversion is wrought on or in a 
man by outside influences, or by a force from 
above. The Bible thought is that conversion is 
the act of the individual himself, for which he is 
directly responsible, however he may be affected 
by influences from without and above. The old 
version seemed to say to the sinner, " Be con- 
verted." The new version distinctly says to 
him, "Turn" (Matt. 13: 15; Mark 4: 12; Luke 
22 : 32 ; John 12 : 40 ; Acts 3 : 19 ; 28 : 2j) . There 
is no such command, either in word or spirit as 
" Be converted," in the new and more correct 
version. Yet that command is still repeated in 
pulpit and press, as if it were justified by the 
Bible teachings, and many believe that it is not 
at variance with the teachings of the Bible. 



Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 83 

The practical bearing of this truth on the ap- 
peals made to sinners to submit themselves to 
Christ, and on sinners in their response to these 
appeals, is incalculably important. It makes a 
vast difference whether a man is summoned to 
immediate personal action in his attitude and 
conduct toward Christ, or whether he is led to 
suppose that he must wait passively for some 
process on or in him which shall give him differ- 
ent views and feelings, and make him a different 
man. The tendency of this error as to the Bible 
call to men has been manifest in innumerable in- 
stances, whatever good has been done, in spite 
of it, by those who held the error, or who were 
appealed to in view of it. 

The writer knew an upright, God-fearing man, 
who was a firm believer in the Bible and an 
earnest student of it, who was faithful in all his 
duties as he understood them, constant in private 
prayer, conducting family worship day by day 
in his household, a teacher in the Sunday-school, 
and an example to Christian believers in his re- 
lations to God and to his fellow-men, who was 
kept back from communion with Christ's people 
in church fellowship by the thought that he had 
not been converted, and that he could not prop- 
erly connect himself with the church until he had 
been. He grew gray in his waiting to be con^- 



84 Our Misunderstood Bible 

verted, and finally he died without being con- 
scious of any experience which seemed to him 
like conversion as he was taught to expect it. 
Of course, God knows his own, and will care 
for them, however they may be misled by wrong 
teachings or mis-translations ; but they may suf- 
fer seriously all their lifetime from a lack of priv- 
ileges to which they were entitled, but which 
were wrongly denied them. 

When the writer urged upon a young man his 
personal duty to become a follower of Christ, the 
answer was, " I wish I could be, but I am not 
converted, nor can I convert myself. I go to 
church regularly, and I put myself in the way of 
a blessing, but conversion doesn't come." That 
young man had been taught by his parents, and 
his church teachers, that he must be converted, 
and he waited aimlessly for the result. 

In another instance, a young man of excep- 
tionally high standards of thought and conduct 
told the writer that he had put himself in the way 
of the best influences, in the hope of " being con- 
verted/' but without avail. He had sat under 
good preaching, and had been talked to and 
prayed with by excellent men ; but he was not 
converted. There has been many a case like this. 

When, again, the writer urged upon a man 
the duty of a change of attitude toward Christ, 






Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 85 

and pressed him for a decision, the man said he 
would gladly begin immediately to follow Christ 
as his Master. They knelt together, and the 
writer prayed with and for the other. The other 
responded heartily, and, as he rose from his 
knees, he exclaimed: 

" I guess it is all right now. I sort o' felt some- 
thing break inside o' me just then." 

He thought he was converted. If, in conse- 
quence of that thought, he was encouraged to 
trust Christ and serve him, he was advantaged 
thereby ; but if he merely relied on his belief that 
he had had a saving experience, he was likely 
to become fixed in a harmful error. 

On one occasion, when the writer talked with 
an ill-tempered, violently profane man, he was 
moved to rebuke the man for his godless course, 
and for his open defiance of the authority of 
God. At this the man changed his tone, and 
said whiningly: 

" Oh ! when it comes to that, I'm all right. I 
know I'm a rough fellow, but I was soundly 
converted twenty-three years ago the seventeenth 
of last September, and I've never lost that old 
hope." 

All that that man had of religion was the men- 
tal record of his " sound " conversion, and his 
hopes rested on the saving power of that. 



86 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Mr. Moody tells of the definition of " conver- 
sion " given by a believer who was won to Christ 
while a soldier in the British army. 

"It was just/' he said, "Halt! About face! 
March ! " 

That is the Bible idea of conversion, as con- 
trasted with .the popular idea, illustrated in the 
other cases. 

The writer heard a preacher telling his con- 
gregation, as they waited on his words of coun- 
sel, that they could not convert themselves 2 and 
that there was, in fact, nothing for them to do 
but to wait for God's movement in this matter. 
Such preaching would not lead the hearers to 
action, nor was it intended to. 

As " conversion," in the Bible use of that term, 
is the deliberate turning of an individual toward 
God, it follows, as a matter of course, that a man 
may thus turn as often as he finds himself in a 
wrong attitude toward God, or facing in the 
wrong direction. When Andrew found Jesus, 
and was convinced that he was the Messiah, 
Peter turned, or "converted," and followed 
Jesus. When, again, Peter " turned " away from 
Jesus, by denying him, Jesus wanted him to turn, 
or convert, back again. Thus any man can turn, 
or convert, again, as many times as he goes 
astray. 



Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 87 

This view of conversion does not necessarily 
affect the theological doctrines of " falling from 
grace " and of " the perseverance of saints/' 
Whatever be thought on these points, the doc- 
trine does not pivot on the meaning of the Bible 
word " convert." That word can hardly be in 
dispute. 

In illustration of the fact, however, that a mis- 
taken and unbiblical view of conversion is wide- 
spread and misleading, a circular sent broadcast 
through the country from a center of religious 
interest in New York City furnishes abundant 
evidence. The object of this circular is to obtain 
information for permanent preservation as " a 
study of conversion." It gives a series of spe- 
cific questions which the person receiving it is 
desired to answer. Here are specimens of these 
questions, with this preliminary caution : 

" Persons answering the following questions 
should be especially careful not to confuse beliefs 
and experiences of a later date with those of the 
time of conversion." 

" Where, on what occasion, and under what 
circumstances, were you converted? Had you, 
before that moment, made up your mind that 
you would be converted if possible? Tell, in 
detail, what you then meant by conversion. Why 
did you desire it? What did you expect of it? 



88 Our Misunderstood Bible 

. . . What was the state of your health ? " 

" Relate your conversion. What were the var- 
ious thoughts in your mind, and the various feel- 
ings in your heart, at the moment of conversion ? 
. . . Were you very much moved ? By what 
or by whom were you moved ? " 

" Describe - your feelings and your thoughts 
immediately after conversion. Were you aware 
that you had experienced conversion? In what 
particulars had you become changed ? " 

" If you have passed through more than one 
similar experience, or through other less mo- 
mentous moral crises, describe each one sepa- 
rately, giving date of each." 

In all these questions not a word is said as in- 
dicating or suggesting any sense of responsibility, 
on the part of the individual, for his turning from 
the wrong to the right, from self to God. All 
of them look not to a man's turning to God, but 
to a man's being converted to God. 

Turning to God whenever one is away from 
him is the plain duty of believer and unbeliever. 
That is conversion. There is nothing in the 
Bible which, read and understood as it was writ- 
ten, would lead one to suppose otherwise. Of 
course, the power to turn, or to go forward, to 
halt or to move, to act, to speak, or to breathe, is 
from God ; but when God calls a man to halt or 



Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 89 

to turn, God is ready to give the man all neces- 
sary power to enable him to act accordingly. 

Regeneration, whenever that takes place, is 
the work of the Holy Spirit ; it is not the work 
of man. But the Bible never confounds regen- 
eration with conversion ; nor ought a man to 
make this mistake for himself or for others. 



X 



NLLDLE5S WORRY AS TO BEING 
"BORN AGAIN" 

Various theories of Christian "regeneration," 
or the "new birth," or the being "born again," 
have been held and taught by different Christians 
along the centuries, since the conversation of 
Jesus with Nicodemus was first recorded in the 
Fourth Gospel. Yet, whatever be the view enter- 
tained, the new life is to be accepted as a gift or 
grace from God, and is not to be worried over 
as a duty or work on the part of the individual. 

It has been claimed by many that Christian 
baptism is the means or vehicle of a new spiritual 
birth, or of regeneration. More than one denom- 
ination of Christians has practically made this 
opinion fundamental to its membership. 

Again, it has been held by many that the term 
"conversion" is synonymous with "regeneration," 
and that "to be converted" is practically the same 
as to "be born again." This view it is, however, 
more difficult to reconcile with the Bible text 
since the Revisers have removed from the text 
the passive form, "be converted," and substituted, 
as more correct, the active form, "turn." 

90 



Needless Worry as to Being Born Again 91 

Other views also have been held with positive- 
ness by Christian scholars and Bible students. 
And with all these views needless worry has often 
come to the individual sinner. 

Without entering into a discussion as to the 
real meaning of the term to "be born again," or 
as to the precise nature of the new birth, or 
changed spiritual being, it is worth while to call 
attention to the unmistakable fact that Jesus 
does not in any place, nor does any inspired disci- 
ple of his, give a command to an individual soul 
to "be born again/' or speak of a new birth as 
if it were a personal duty of the individual. Only 
a failure to perceive the force of the words of 
Jesus in that conversation with Nicodemus can 
account for the error, into which many have 
fallen, of supposing that the words " Ye must 
be born again" are in the nature of a command 
or of an obligation. It is the statement of a fact 
or a truth; it is not the imperative command to 
a duty. 

In the first place, it is to be noted that it was 
not to the multitude on the hillside, or the shore, 
or by the way, that Jesus stated this truth, as if 
it were to enjoin on all a plain duty. It was in a 
conference at night-time with a theological pro- 
fessor. It is to be considered accordingly. No 
disciple of Jesus, according to the New Testa- 



92 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ment, repeated that statement to those who 
were called to serve and trust Jesus. 

" Except one be born anew [or, from 
above], he cannot see the kingdom of God," 
Those are the words of Jesus. And again, "Mar- 
vel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
again." This is not a command to a duty, but is 
a plain statement of a fact or a truth. It is a 
perversion of the Scriptures to quote the words 
as if they were a command. 

Being born, the first time or the second time, is 
clearly not a duty to be performed by ourselves. 
No man can "born" himself. Turning to God, 
submitting himself to God — that is a duty. Be- 
ing made a new man, being spiritually renewed, 
being given a clearer sight — that is a blessing 
from above. Turning, trusting — that is man's 
part. Renewing, regenerating — that is God's 
part. If we will do our part, God can be relied 
on to do his part. To doubt this is wrong and 
unjustifiable. 

Yet this statement of a philosophical fact to a 
theological teacher is often used as if it were a 
command in an address to a child or to the 
childlike; and thus it is made a stumbling-block 
before, instead of a help towards or into, the 
kingdom of God. What sad consequences may 
result to those who are misled by their mistaken 



Needless Worry as to Being " Born Again" 93 

guides, through this misconception of an impor- 
tant truth as declared by the Teacher of teach- 
ers ! 

It is because the writer himself groped and 
agonized for long years in the Christian life 
through being mistaught by those who knew no 
better, that he sounds a note of warning against 
supposing that being born again is a personal 
duty of the individual who would serve and 
trust Christ. Whatever view is held of the spirit- 
ual change spoken of in the words of Jesus, "Ye 
must be born anew/' of one thing we may be 
sure, — they are not meant to teach any person 
that he is to wait outside the loving service 
of Christ until some great change is wrought in 
him, whereby he becomes personally conscious 
that he has another nature than before. The 
reference is clearly to God's part, not man's, in 
the blessing of salvation. 



XI 

15 THERE ANY REAL GAIN 
IN SALVATION? 

As there is no possibility of salvation except 
to those who were lost, the very term salvation 
presupposes the idea of a lost condition. Hence, 
salvation has ever had an aspect that is not at- 
tractive to all. Many, very many, prefer to be 
counted among those who were ever stainless, 
rather than among those who have been 
cleansed; among the pure from the beginning 
rather than among the now redeemed. And this 
it is that is one of the hindrances to the gospel 
message. Thus it is in our day, and thus it was 
in the day of Jesus. 

Salvation, the salvation of the lost, is the dis- 
tinctive message of the New Testament; it is, 
indeed, in itself the " gospel," the " evangel," the 
"good news," which is the substance of that new 
revelation from God. The Old Testament shows 
God's requirements of man, and man's failure to 
conform to God's requirements ; it discloses 
man's lost estate, and gives promises of a plan 
for his rescue. The New Testament brings for- 
ward God's plan of salvation for the lost, and 

94 



Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 95 

presses the offer of it upon all who are in need 
of it. 

Not the reward of the sinless well-doer, but 
the salvation of the sinner, is the theme of 
themes of the gospel story. " They that are in 
health have no need of a physician ; but they that 
are sick " (Luke 5: 31), said Jesus. And as 
showing that his mission was a new and a start- 
ling one, he added : " But go ye and learn what 
this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice : 
for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. " 
(Matt. 9 : 13.) Again he said : " The Son of man 
came to seek and to save that which was lost." 
(Luke 19: 10.) Over and over again our Lord 
affirmed this truth specifically, while he was il- 
lustrating it in his daily ministry of love. He 
welcomed publicans and sinners, moral outcasts 
as they were, to his following and companion- 
ship ; and when he was criticised for this he said 
plainly that this was the main feature of his mis- 
sion. He even went so far as to say that there 
was more rejoicing in heaven over those who 
were saved from a lost condition than over those 
who were never lost; and that here on earth, 
those who had greatest love for God were those 
who had had most forgiven them. 

This was a shocking doctrine to the average 
well-doer in the days of our Lord; and it is a 



96 Our Misunderstood Bible 

doctrine that is still repugnant to the natural 
mind. The scribes and Pharisees, who were 
the most upright and religious classes in the 
community at that time, felt that this doctrine 
put a premium on evil-doing, and tended to 
make men- believe that they would really be the 
gainers in the end by indulging in sin before 
coming into the active service of God. And 
there are not a few intelligent and earnest Chris- 
tian believers at the present time who take the 
same view of this doctrine ; nor is it to be won- 
dered at, in one view of the case, that this is so. 
Our Lord's parable of the Prodigal Son is a 
test illustration of this truth of the gain of salva- 
tion, in its attractiveness and in its more repel- 
lent features. A profligate son, who has wasted 
in evil-doing his possessions and his opportuni- 
ties, is not only welcomed back to his home with 
signs of rejoicing, but is made the recipient of 
tokens of honor that seem to put him into a 
larger prominence in his father's house than 
was ever accorded to a son who had never been 
a profligate. From the time that that parable 
was spoken, down to the present hour, there 
have always been those whose sense of justice 
was outraged by the suggestion that a rescued 
profligate is to receive higher honor in God's 
presence than one who has never lapsed from 



Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 97 

the path of duty. Yet that this is the plain 
teaching of the parable as it stands, and in the 
connection of its presenting, would seem to be 
unmistakable. 

In very recent days a distinguished and most 
excellent clergyman declared in public comment 
on this parable, "For myself I immensely prefer 
the non-prodigal son, and so did the father." 
Another distinguished clergyman was reported 
as saying publicly, " I'm with the elder brother 
every time." These clergymen represent a 
large class of those who, in the modern pulpit 
or in our modern community, instinctively re- 
coil from some aspects of the gospel of salva- 
tion. And this fact it is that raises the emi- 
nently practical and most important question, 
Is there any real gain in salvation? 

Viewed simply as a matter of justice, the re- 
turned prodigal was not treated according to 
his deserts. It is to be borne in mind, how- 
ever, that salvation is not a matter of justice, 
but is a matter of grace ; and grace abounds, in 
God's plan of salvation, according to the oppor- 
tunities for its exercise. The action of grace 
is, therefore, not to be judged by the claims of 
bald justice, but is to be looked at as an expres- 
sion of the Divine love that has prompted it. 
Justice requires that " whatsoever a man sow- 



98 Our Misunderstood Bible 

eth, that shall he also reap " (Gal. 6:7). When 
a man has sinned, justice demands his punish- 
ment; but grace may interpose and secure his 
pardon. It may even be true that " where sin 
abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly " 
(Rom. 5 : 20) ; and that added prominence comes 
in consequence to him who is the greatest tro- 
phy of God's grace in salvation. All this is, of 
course, apart from any question as to the phil- 
osophy of the plan of salvation, or the rela- 
tions of God's action to principles of eternal 
justice. Strictly speaking, salvation is clearly 
not a matter of justice, but is a matter of grace. 
Salvation is not, however, unjust toward any; 
even though it is non-just — that is, not pivoted 
on justice in its original plan — toward those who 
are saved. 

Take, for an illustration of this truth in an- 
other sphere, the workings of human surgery. 
Surgery is not a normal agency; it is an abnor- 
mal one. Its mission is to rescue from death 
the subjects of various destructive forces, rather 
than to minister to those who have never re- 
ceived harm. As a consequence of this mission 
of surgery, a skilful surgeon would naturally 
have more rejoicing over his success in behalf 
of a man who would have perished miserably 
but for his intervention, than he could have over 



Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 99 

a hundred men whose condition never called 
for his aid. When, at the close of our Civil 
War, the United States Government would 
make known to the world the triumphs of its 
representative surgeons in their sphere, it issued 
a volume with full-page chromo-lithograph por- 
traits of men who had been successfully oper- 
ated upon after injuries that had left them mere 
physical wrecks. Every man in that roll of 
honor was a sadly maimed man; not a solitary 
unharmed military athlete was included in its 
numbers. More joy seemed to be shown by 
the Government over one person thus rescued 
from ruin than over a thousand men who had 
never responded to a surgeon's call. Was there 
any injustice in this proceeding? Who would 
claim that there was? 

Could it be said, however, that this added 
honor put by the Government upon the success- 
fully treated subjects of surgery was giving a 
premium to physical disability? Would any 
fair-minded man suppose that thereby the 
United States surgeons indicated their belief 
that a man with one leg was better off than a 
man with two, or that he who had lost the sight 
of an eye and the hearing of an ear was better 
fitted for the ordinary duties of life, after the 
war's campaigning, than if he had come out of 

LOFfc 



100 Our Misunderstood Bible 

the war unscathed? No, no! It is not the 
being maimed to which honor is here given, 
but it is the being successfully treated while so 
fearfully maimed. So in the realm of salva- 
tion; not the wretched profligacy of the prodi- 
gal son, but the glorious rescue of the son lost 
through his profligacy, calls for the honor of 
the best robe, the signet ring, the fatted calf, 
and the household rejoicings. The son whose 
moral nature was a loser by his excesses must, in 
some sense, remain a loser permanently; but he 
will, nevertheless, have special honor in God's 
presence as a miracle of grace and redeeming love. 
It is because so many fail to see the distinc- 
tion here made between the gain of salvation 
from sin, and the gain of being a sinner as 
precedent to being saved, that they are thought- 
lessly inclined to approve the course and the 
spirit of the elder brother in the parable, in com- 
parison with the course and spirit of the 
younger brother. They are right in thinking 
that the elder brother did better than the 
younger, in remaining at home with his father 
instead of going off in evil courses. They are 
wrong in thinking that the elder brother was 
in any sense excusable for his lack of rejoicing 
that the lost was saved, and that his father's 
heart was made glad again. 



Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 101 

Looked at in the light of the duty and the 
privileges of love, there is a despicable side to 
the character of that elder brother in the para- 
ble of the Prodigal Son, with his cold-hearted, 
calculating, selfishly reputable morality. He had 
remained at home, it is true ; but it was his home, 
and he was the gainer by remaining in it. So lit- 
tle, however, did he have of sympathy with his 
father, or of love for him, during all his life at 
home, that when he found that that poor old 
father's heavy heart had been made glad again 
by the return of a mourned-for son, his first im- 
pulse was to jeer at his father, to insult his 
father, to traduce his father, and to cause his 
father mental anguish by his baseless and selfish 
reproaches. He was angry. He was boastful. 
He charged his father with injustice. He was 
unfilial and unfraternal, and every way unloving. 
But his good father loved him even in spite of 
his unloveliness ; as that father loved the other 
son in spite of his waywardness. 

Salvation is of love. He who appreciates 
salvation is moved by love; and he who is 
moved by love appreciates salvation. He who 
has had most forgiven loves most. The re- 
turned prodigal had much forgiven, and it is 
reasonable to suppose that he loved much. 

The elder brother's desire was not salvation, 



102 Our Misunderstood Bible 

but justice — in spite of his misconduct; and 
love seems to have had no place in his heart. 
If he had rightly appreciated his own spirit and 
his own lack, he might have said as to himself 
when he had finished with his list of claimed 
good qualities and deeds, " Yet if, in addition 
to all this, I even ' have all faith, so as to re- 
move mountains, but have not love, I am noth- 
ing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the 
poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but 
have not love, it profiteth me nothing ' " ( I Cor. 
13: 2, 3). Do we always realize the true worth 
and indispensableness of salvation and of love? 
Let us see to it that the elder brother's unlove- 
liness is not ours also. 



XII 

NOT A DUTY TO WORK OUT 
ONL'S SALVATION 

If there is one passage in the Bible that is 
commonly, and perhaps generally, misunder- 
stood and perverted, and supposed to teach the 
very opposite of what it means, that passage is 
in Paul's letter to the Philippians, where he 
says, as he is going away from the believers 
whom he loves, " Work out your own salvation 
with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2: 12). The 
common idea as to this text is that it means 
that the sinner has a share in the work of secur- 
ing his own salvation. As a matter of fact, it 
means nothing of the sort. 

Salvation is Christ's work. It is not a work 
that is partly Christ's and partly the sinner's. 
He who begins a good work will doubtless finish 
it. This we are to believe, and this we are to 
teach. Our share in our salvation is not to our 
credit, but to the added credit of our Saviour. 
A New England boy, who was brought before 
the church authorities as an applicant for ad- 
mission, had the right idea as to this, although 
he expressed it quaintly. 

103 



104 Our Misunderstood Bible 

"Why do you want to join the church?" 
asked the pastor. 

" Because I want to show that I am a saved 
sinner." 

" Do you feel that you are saved ? " 

"Yes, sir." 

" Who saved you ? " 

" It was the work of Jesus Christ and of my- 
self." 

"Of yourself? What was your share in the 
work of your salvation?" 

" I resisted, and Jesus Christ did the rest." 

That boy understood the case better than one 
who thinks that he has a part of his own salva- 
tion to accomplish by personal endeavor. 

Perhaps the term " work out " is, in a meas- 
ure, responsible for the popular misconception 
of Paul's counsel to the Philippians. In New 
England, and possibly in other parts of the 
United States, " work out " has a technical, or 
a popular, signification. Highways are built 
and kept in repair by the public for the public. 
Every citizen, especially every property-holder, 
has to pay his share of the road-tax in his vi- 
cinity. His amount of tax is assessed by the 
selectmen, or the supervisors, as they are called. 
This includes his share, to be paid in cash, or to 
be " worked out " by personal labor. A large 



Not a Duty to Work Out One's Salvation 105 

majority of citizens in New England "work 
out " their share of the highway tax instead of 
paying it in cash. In consequence of this the 
term to " work out " is understood in New 
England to mean doing one's share in the pay- 
ment of government taxes. 

But Christ's salvation is not wrought for 
sinners on the plan of New England road-mak- 
ing. He came into the world to save sinners, 
not to help sinners save themselves or work out 
their own salvation. 

If, however, the injunction to work out one's 
own salvation with fear and trembling does not 
mean that there is any part of one's salvation 
to be worked out, or to be wrought by one's 
self, what does the Bible injunction mean? This 
will be asked by many a reader, and not unnat- 
urally. 

The plain answer to this question will be 
found in the context of the passage in question, 
if one will but read it attentively. 

Paul is writing, not to outside, or unsaved, 
sinners in Philippi, but to disciples of Christ 
who are saved by him, and who are sharers of 
his life. He is not telling unsaved sinners how 
to be saved, but he is telling saved sinners what 
to do with their salvation, and how to make it 
tell for their Saviour's glory, and in the dis- 



106 Our Misunderstood Bible 

charge of their obvious duty toward him and 
toward those whom he loves. 

" Have this mind in you/' Paul says, " which 
was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2: 5). And 
he reminds them what were the mind and spirit 
of Christ which he commends to them as an 
example. Paul is going away, and he wants 
the Philippian disciples to bear faithful witness 
to Christ, in the absence from them of their 
loving human teacher. " So then, my beloved, 
even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my 
presence only, but now much more in my ab- 
sence, work out your own salvation with fear 
and trembling; for it is God which worketh in 
you both to will and to work, for his good 
pleasure" (Phil. 2: 12, 13). 

It has been suggested that the word " out- 
work " would give an idea of the meaning of 
Paul's injunction " work out." You have ob- 
tained salvation wholly from God, now let it 
appear ; " outwork your salvation," so that 
others may see what it is. Again, it is as 
though Paul had said, " manifest your salva- 
tion ; " " evidence your salvation ; " " bring up 
your salvation from below the surface, so that 
it may be seen and felt by those who see you, 
and feel you, and know you and your joy and 
your faith." 



Not a Duty to Work Out One's Salvation 107 

Paul's counsel to the Philippian believers is 
counsel also for us and for all. It is not a 
suggestion that Christ is unable to compass 
more than a part of the sinner's salvation. It is 
a suggestion that, Christ having wrought our 
full salvation, and having wrought it without 
our aid, we certainly owe it to him and to others 
whom he has saved, or whom he is ready to 
save, to work out from ourselves the salvation 
that we rejoice in, and which Christ is ever 
glad to give to others fully and freely. 



XIII 
SANCTIFICATION, NOT "SANCTIFICATION" 

" Sanctification " is a Bible word, and again 
it is a theological word. It has two different 
meanings in these two spheres. Each meaning 
is distinct and well defined, and important by 
itself ; but the one meaning ought not to be con- 
founded with the other, as too commonly it is. 
Trouble comes from supposing that the word 
means the same thing in both cases. 

According to the Bible, " sanctification " is 
the being devoted to a sacred use or purpose; 
the being set apart to a holy service; the being 
consecrated to God or to God's cause. Accord- 
ing to common theological teachings or termi- 
nology, " sanctification " is a process by which 
one makes attainment in godliness, and ad- 
vances toward purity of life and being; or, 
again, it is a state or attainment as a result of 
processes and progress. In the one case, "sanc- 
tification " is the immediate act of an individual 
for himself, or it is the immediate result of the 
act of another in or for him. In the other case, 
" sanctification " is not compassed all at once, 
at the beginning, by the action of one's self or 

108 



Sanctification, Not " Sanctification " 109 

of another, but it is a movement toward a de- 
sired state, or the final state itself, not to be 
reached except by continued processes with re- 
sultant progress. 

In Bible usage, he who sets himself apart to 
God's service, or whom God sets apart to him- 
self, is a sanctified man. He is the Lord's now, 
and he has a call to count himself wholly the 
Lord's sanctified one. His sanctification is in 
the act or fact of his setting himself apart, or 
of his being set apart. His progress as a sanc- 
tified man is his progress from the point of his 
being definitely sanctified. Whatever gain comes 
to him in God's service is his gain as an already 
sanctified man, not his gain toward fuller sanc- 
tification. But in theological parlance, sancti- 
fication, or " progressive sanctification," is a 
gradual process by which one who is not yet 
wholly sanctified makes attainment toward that 
state. In the one case, sanctification is counted 
the true beginning of right Christian service ; 
and, in the other case, it is an end in, or a de- 
sired result of, such service. 

God's repeated commands to his special serv- 
ants, or his deputed representatives, were to 
sanctify others to his service by formal acts of 
consecration and cleansing. " Sanctify unto me 
all the first-born," he said to Moses in Egypt 



1 1 Our Misunderstood Bible 

(Exod. 13: 2). "Jehovah said unto Moses," 
at Sinai, " Go unto the people, and sanctify 
them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash 
their garments, and be ready against the third 
day" (Exod. 19: 10, 11). "And Moses went 
down from the mount unto the people and sanc- 
tified the people; and they washed their gar- 
ments" (Exod. 19: 14). When Aaron and his 
sons were set apart for the priesthood, God's 
command to Moses was, " Anoint them, and 
consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they 
may minister unto me in the priest's office " 
(Exod. 28: 41). "And Moses took of the 
anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon 
the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon 
his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his 
sons' garments with him ; and sanctified Aaron, 
his garments, and his sons, and his sons' gar- 
ments with him" (Lev. 8: 30). Joshua's com- 
mand from God was, " Up, sanctify the people " 
(Josh. 7: 13). God said to Joel: "Sanctify a 
fast, call a solemn assembly: gather the people, 
sanctify the assembly" (Joel 2: 15, 16). 
And so again and again in the Bible record. 

Frequently the people of God were com- 
manded to sanctify themselves. " Sanctify your- 
selves therefore, and be ye holy" (Lev. 20: 7), 
said the Lord to Moses concerning the Israel- 



5anctification, Not " 5anctification " 111 

ites. " Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow " 
(Num. ii : 18), was God's command in the 
wilderness. At the Jordan, Joshua's word was, 
" Sanctify yourselves ; for to-morrow the Lord 
will do wonders among you" (Josh. 3: 5). 
Samuel said to the elders of Bethlehem, " Sanc- 
tify yourselves, and come with me to the sacri- 
fice " (1 Sam. 16: 5). David commanded the 
priests and Levites at Jerusalem : " Sanctify 
yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye 
may bring up the ark of Jehovah, the God of 
Israel. ... So the priests and the Levites 
sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of 
Jehovah, the God of Israel" (1 Chron. 15: 
12, 14). This idea is often repeated in the Old 
Testament story. 

Things, as well as persons, were sanctified by 
a specific dedication, or a formal act, according 
to the Old Testament text. The seventh day 
was sanctified, or made holy, as a rest day to 
the Lord, from the creation. The same He- 
brew word means both " made holy " and " sanc- 
tified," and is thus interchangeably translated. 
(Gen. 2:3; Deut. 5: 12; Neh. 13: 22, etc., 
revised text.) Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19: 23); the 
tabernacle, its altar, its vessels, and its instru- 
ments (Exod. 29: 43, 44; 40: 11; Num. 7: 1) ; 
the offerings (Exod. 29: 2j) ; the temple (2 



112 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Chron. 29: 5) ; a city gate (Neh. 3: 1) ; houses, 
fields (Lev. 27: 14-22), and other possessions, 
were thus consecrated, sanctified, dedicated, or 
renewedly fitted for God's acceptance. 

Even God himself speaks of being sanctified, 
and is spoken of by others as thus being held 
sacred. The Lord " was sanctified," or " showed 
himself holy " at " the waters of Meribah " in 
Kadesh-barnea (Num. 20: 13; Deut. 32: 51). 
He said to his people by the prophet Ezekiel, 
" I will be sanctified in you in the sight of the 
nations" (Ezek. 20: 41); and again, "I will 
sanctify my great name, which hath been pro- 
faned among the nations " (Ezek. 36: 23). And 
thus over and over again. 

There is no room for question as to the mean- 
ing of " sanctifying " in the Old Testament. Not 
a single passage in that portion of the Bible 
suggests the idea of a gradual and progressive 
work. In every instance it has reference to an 
immediate purposeful dedication, a deliberate 
setting apart, a formal devoting to God, of one's 
self or of another or of a particular thing. It 
corresponds with the idea of counting holy. It 
is not consistent with the thought of a mere 
entering upon a process of growth in grace and 
godliness. And as it is in the Old Testament, 
so it is in the New. 



Sanctification, Not " 5anctification " 113 

The Greek word hagiazo ("to sanctify," or, 
" to set apart ") corresponds with the Hebrew 
qadesh ("to count holy;' "to devote," "to 
sanctify"). The Septuagint recognizes this in 
all its translations. Our English version, espe- 
cially in its revision, is conformed to this idea. 
Jesus suggests that it is " the altar that sancti- 
fieth the gift" (Matt. 23: 19). A gift laid on 
the altar is thereby devoted, or made holy. Paul 
declares that if an unbelieving husband is mar- 
ried to a believing wife, " the unbelieving hus- 
band is sanctified in the wife," so that their chil- 
dren can be counted "holy" (1 Cor. 7: 14). 
If the wife be devoted to God, her husband and 
children are counted as included in the dedica- 
tion. Again, Paul suggests that meats not 
ceremonially clean may be eaten by a believer: 
" For every creature of God is good, and noth- 
ing is to be rejected, if it be received with 
thanksgiving: for it is sanctified through the 
word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. 4: 4, 5). 

The writer of Hebrews says emphatically, 
" Both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanc- 
tified are all of one : for which cause he is not 
ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2: 11). 
That is, as the context shows, our Saviour, hav- 
ing been himself in subjection while in the flesh, 



114 Our Misunderstood Bible 

was devoted to God, and now he counts those 
also who devote themselves to God as one with 
himself. This idea is in accordance with the 
prayer of Jesus for his disciples on the night 
of his betrayal : " Sanctify them in the truth : 
thy word i$ truth. . . . For their sakes I 
sanctify myself, that they themselves also may 
be sanctified in truth " (John 17: 17-19). Jesus, 
while in the flesh, is sanctified or consecrated in 
the service of his Father, and he wants his dis- 
ciples to be thus sanctified or devoted within the 
limits, or according to the teachings of, the truth 
as found in God's Word. Again, the writer of 
Hebrews speaks of that " sanctification [or, holi- 
ness] without which no man shall see the Lord " 
(Heb. 12: 14). Of course, one who refrains 
from giving, or devoting, himself wholly to 
God, cannot be accepted of God. Entire sur- 
render and entire consecration are the only 
terms on which any person can enter or con- 
tinue in the active service of God. 

A passage that has been seized upon by those 
who think that the Bible counts personal sanc- 
tification a gradual and progressive work, or a 
final attainment as following certain processes, 
is the prayer of Paul for the Thessalonians : 
" The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly ; 
and may your spirit and soul and body be pre- 



Sanctification, Not m Sanctif ication " 115 

served entire, without blame at the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ" (i Thess. 5: 23). But 
the evident thought of Paul is, not that the 
Thessalonians should be sanctified by piecemeal, 
one portion at a time, or come finally to a state 
or attainment, but that they should make thor- 
ough work of it from the start, giving to God, 
as God seeks it, their entire selves, holding noth- 
ing back from the consecration. 

A Connecticut farmer came to a well-known 
clergyman, saying that the people in his neigh- 
borhood had built a new meeting-house, and that 
they wanted this clergyman to come and 
dedicate it. The clergyman, accustomed to 
participate in dedicatory services where different 
clergymen took different parts of the service, 
inquired : 

" What part do you want me to take in the 
dedication ? " 

The farmer, thinking that this question ap- 
plied to the part of the building to be included 
in the dedication, replied : 

" Why, the whole thing ! Take it all in, from 
underpinning to steeple. " 

That man wanted the building to be wholly 
sanctified as a temple of God, and that all at 
once. " Know ye not that ye are a temple of 
God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? 



116 Our Misunderstood Bible 

. . . The temple of God is holy, and such 
are ye " (i Cor. 3: 16, 17). 

Another passage thought by some to indicate 
the idea of a gradual process in the work of 
sanctification is Ephesians 5 : 25-27, where 
Paul likens Christ's love for his church to a 
true husband's love for his wife : " Husbands, 
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
church, and gave himself up for it; that he 
might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the 
washing of the water with the word, that he 
might present the church to himself a glorious 
church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such 
thing; but that it should be holy and without 
blemish." 

But a true husband does not love his wife or 
take her as his wife by a gradual process. He 
pledges his love at once and for always at the 
time he takes her as his wife, and gives himseff 
as her husband. Jesus Christ gave himself up 
for his church' in one offering, to sanctify or 
consecrate or hallow that church. He wants 
that church to be wholly clean, holy, and without 
blemish. His act of sanctifying his church by 
his blood was a complete act in its first perform- 
ance. The individual members of that wholly 
sanctified church ought to grow in grace toward 
perfect holiness. 



5anctification, Not " Sanctification " 117 

It can be affirmed positively that there is not 
a single text in the New Testament, any more 
than in the Old, which justifies the claim that 
" sanctification/' as the word is employed in the 
Bible, applies to a gradual purifying and uplift- 
ing of the inner being. It always refers to an 
immediate and formal act of consecration or 
devotion, complete from the beginning. Thus 
far as to the Bible term " sanctification/' or " to 
sanctify." 

As to the theological term " sanctification," — 
that term refers to a process that is clearly 
recognized in the Bible, under the term " growth 
in grace." Growth in grace is the duty and priv- 
ilege of the Christian believer. " Grow in the 
grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3: 18), says the Apostle. 
And again, " Grow up in all things into him, 
who is the head, even Christ" (Eph. 4: 15). 
And so at many another point in the Bible teach- 
ings. He who is wholly sanctified has a duty to 
grow in grace continually. 

The only trouble is that the word " sanctifica- 
tion," in all its variant forms in the Bible, means 
one thing, while the word " sanctification " as 
used in theological discussions, and in popular 
speech about the Christian life, means quite an- 
other thing. Each English word has its own 



118 Our Misunderstood Bible 

meaning, and represents a Bible truth, if only 
the word be recognized as a different word 
from the other ; but when the one word is taken 
as meaning the same as the other, there is end- 
less confusion in consequence. 

During war time the writer heard an illiterate 
and warm-hearted colored preacher at New 
Berne, North Carolina, preach from the text 
" Lo, I come." He began his sermon thus : 

" D'ye har dat, bredren ? ' Low I come/ not 
■ High I come.' De Lord Jesus comes to de 
poor and de lowly." 

That was good gospel, but poor exegesis. The 
idea was all right, but the preacher had the 
wrong word to base it on. It is much the same 
with any one who supposes that the Bible word 
" sanctification " teaches the Bible truth of 
growth in grace and godliness. 



XIV 

PURITY OF HEART NOT A STATE 
OF 5INLE55NE5S 

One of the beatitudes that is least understood, 
and that as it stands seems most difficult of 
realization, is that which pivots a clear concep- 
tion of God, or an actual sight of God, on abso- 
lute purity of heart. " Blessed are the pure in 
heart: for they shall see God " (Matt. 5:8). 
If that means that only those who are sinless, 
stainless, morally pure — free from moral imper- 
fection, not merely in act and in word, but in very 
thought and desire — can see or perceive God, 
then indeed it shuts out every human being from 
the possibility of such an attainment. Yet the 
place of this beatitude in the teachings of our 
Lord forbids the supposition that in its utter- 
ance, to those who w r ere listeners to his teach- 
ings on the Mount, he was deliberately closing 
the doors to all against the longed-for percep- 
tion of God. Hence it follows that these words 
cannot mean what their bald literalness in our 
English translation would seem to indicate ; and 
that we would do well to ascertain what they 
do mean. 

119 



120 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Three words in that beatitude liable to be mis- 
understood, and so to be misleading to the ordi- 
nary English reader, are " heart/' " pure " and 
" see." Each one of these words is worth con- 
sidering by itself, as a help to the understand- 
ing of the beatitude in its entirety. 

The word " heart " is now used as a synonym 
of the feelings or emotions or affections, as over 
against the " head " or " brain " as a synonym 
of the mind or intellect. We speak of a man 
of good impulses, but of bad judgment as one 
" whose heart is right, but whose head is 
wrong." But the ancients had another mode of 
anatomical symbolism. They located the mind 
in the heart, and the affections in the stomach or 
bowels. In both the Old Testament and the 
New the term "heart" usually corresponds 
with our term " mind," and the term " belly," 
or " bowels," with our term " affections." 
" Heart " in those days, like " mind " at the 
present time, could include the idea of the whole 
man ; as a man who has set his heart to a work, 
or who is whole-minded to that work. The same 
Hebrew word is, indeed, frequently translated 
in our English Bible both " mind " and " heart." 
Again the Greek word rendered " mind " in the 
New Testament refers rather to the purpose 
and will than to the intellect and understanding. 



Purity of Heart Not .a State of Sinlessness 121 

But in the nicer distinctions of these anatomical 
figures of speech of the ancients the " heart " 
of then stood for the " mind " of now, and the 
" bowels " of then for the " heart " of now. In 
the u heart/' or the mind, man thinketh, before 
his thought takes representative shape in action. 
With the " heart/' or the mind, man believeth, 
before his mouth makes confession of his belief. 
He is swayed by " bowels " or feelings of mercy 
or of compassion, and out of his " belly " (or, 
as we would say, heart) there go forth streams 
of love in feelings of affection for those who 
are in need. This is the way in which the Bible 
uses the term " heart ;" therefore in the beati- 
tudes, as elsewhere, " heart " means, according 
to our way of speaking, mind, or purpose, and 
not heart. 

The word " pure," as ordinarily used, in He- 
brew, in Greek, and in English, means " without 
alloy/' " clean," " clear," "simple," " single." It 
is applied, in the Bible, to virgin gold, to a clean 
table or candlestick, to flawless glass, to un- 
mixed oil, and to water that is only water. It 
does not necessarily involve a moral element. 
It never stands for absolute sinlessness of being. 
Hence it is to be taken, in the Sermon on the 
Mount, as well as elsewhere, when connected 
with " heart," or " mind," as meaning " single," 



122 Our Misunderstood Bible 

"simple/ 1 "unmixed." The "pure in heart" 
are those whose minds, or very selves, are sin- 
gle, simple, undivided and unalloyed in one aim 
and purpose. 

In Bible usage, as in our ordinary modes of 
speech, to " see " is not merely to have in the 
field of natural vision, but is to discern, or per- 
ceive, or recognize, or apprehend. To say " I 
see " is a familiar and intelligible form of ex- 
pression by the blind, when a thought or a truth 
is made clear through the mind's eye. We see 
a great many things that we do not see. We 
can see much that we cannot see. " No man 
hath seen God at any time " (John 1 : 18) ; yet 
it is the privilege and the duty of every child 
of God to walk as Moses walked, " as seeing 
him who is invisible " (Heb. n : 27). 

In the light of Bible usage, therefore, the 
words of this beatitude might be rendered: 
" Blessed are the single-minded, or single- 
purposed : for they shall perceive God." Blessed 
are those whose whole being is intent on seeing 
him who is invisible; blessed are those 
who look toward God all the time, and who will 
not be diverted from that looking; blessed are 
those who live to see God: — for they shall see 
him. Thus rendered, this beatitude is consistent 
with all the teachings of our Lord and of his 



Purity of Heart Not a State of 5inlessness 123 

apostles, as well as with all the great truths in 
the kingdoms of nature and of grace. It is in 
this very Sermon on the Mount that our Lord 
says to his disciples : " The lamp of the body 
is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single [sim- 
ple, clear, unblurred], thy whole body shall be 
full of light" (Matt. 6: 22) ; and in immediate 
connection with this declaration, as if in appli- 
cation of its truth, he says : " Xo man can serve 
two masters : for either he will hate the one, and 
love the other ; or else he will hold to one, 
and despise the other" (Matt. 6: 24). The 
eye that would see the right master must be sin- 
gle, clear, pure ; for no man can see the master 
whom he ought to serve if he is looking, or 
trying to look, in two directions. Such a serv- 
ant is described by the apostle James as " a 
double-minded man, unstable in all his ways " 
(Jas. 1: 8). 

Single-mindedness, or simple-mindedness, is 
a characteristic of childhood. A child is all at- 
tent to one thing at a time, looking at that one 
thing with single eye and simpleness of mind ; 
while double-mindedness, or divided thinking, is 
the peril of the full-grown person. How many 
things a keen-eyed child will see in an everyday 
walk that are unnoticed by the father whom he 
accompanies ! The father has too many things 



124 Our Misunderstood Bible 

in his mind, or on his mind, to observe that 
which, for the moment, is the all in all to the 
single-eyed and simple-minded — or, as the Bible 
would call it, the pure-hearted — child. There- 
fore it is that our Lord said to his maturer dis- 
ciples : " Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall 
not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, 
he shall in no wise enter therein" (Luke 18: 
17). The pure in heart are the child-minded. 
They shall see God, because when they are look- 
ing for him they are not looking for anything 
else. Their eyes are single, their minds are 
undivided, and their whole being goes out 
toward the object of their search. They seek 
for God, and they find him when they search for 
him with all their mind. 

He who has his mind, or purpose, his thoughts, 
his desires, his whole being, clarified and unal- 
loyed, fixed and centered on God, longing to 
perceive him, to be in communion with him, to 
be a partaker of his spirit and his life, shall find 
him, and shall know that he is one with him. 
He is one of the pure in heart, of the single-eyed 
and the simple-minded, who shall perceive God 
clearly, and in consequence be blessed or happy 
continually. 



XV 
BIBLE PERFECTION NOT 5INLE5SNE55 

Over against the promised blessing to the 
" pure in heart " there stands the command of 
Jesus to his disciples, " Be ye therefore perfect, 
even as your Father which is in heaven is per- 
fect " (Matt. 5: 48) ; or, as it reads in the Re- 
vised text, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as 
your heavenly Father is perfect. ,, As this is 
popularly understood, and frequently preached 
about, it is a command to sinlessness, or to 
moral faultlessness, a command to be free from 
spot or stain or taint of evil, to be like God in 
holiness and purity; and many of the disciples 
of Jesus say of this requirement, as others said 
of his call to oneness with himself by partak- 
ing of his flesh and his blood, " This is a hard 
saying; who can hear it?" (John 6: 60.) 

Others, again, console themselves w r ith the 
belief that, as Jesus would not command the 
impossible, they can be sinless to the extent re- 
quired in this injunction; and therefore they 
strive to that end, and, indeed, think they attain 
to it. Thus the differences of opinion as to the 
meaning of this command lead many, on the 

125 



126 Our Misunderstood Bible 

one hand, to hopeless striving after moral per- 
fectness, and to doubt or despair in view of their 
obvious failure ; and lead many, on the other 
hand, to self-deception and a wrong estimate of 
their moral conduct and spiritual condition. 
Both these undesirable states of mind are a 
result of a too common misunderstanding of the 
plain meaning of the term " perfect," as it stands 
in that command of Jesus. 

The word " perfect/' or " perfection," or 
" perfectly," as found in our English Bible, 
never means a mere state of sinlessness. It has, 
indeed, no exclusive reference to moral 
qualities or to a moral condition. Its 
meaning is rather a state of complete- 
ness, of wholeness, of entirety. Several He- 
brew and several Greek words are thus trans- 
lated, but all of them have practically the same 
root idea. The command to the Israelites to 
have " a perfect and just weight," and " a per- 
fect and just measure" (Deut. 25: 15), had 
reference only to the material substance of the 
weight and measure. The host of David's sol- 
diers who came with him to Hebron " with a 
perfect heart" (1 Chron. 12: 38) were not sin- 
less men, but " whole-hearted " retainers of the 
new ruler. When it was said of Tyre, " Thou 
wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou 



Bible Perfection Not 5inlessness 127 

wast created, till unrighteousness was found in 
thee" (Ezek. 28: 15), it is clear that symmetry 
and entirety are included in the idea of perfect- 
ness, rather than sinlessness or moral purity. 
So all the way along the Old Testament record. 

When Jesus said to the rich young man who 
wanted to know how to make sure of eternal 
life, " If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that 
which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou 
shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come, follow 
me" (Matt. 19: 21), he clearly meant, "if thou 
wouldest complete thy work of preparation, if 
thou wouldest be thorough in this thing." And 
when James says that the man who can control 
his tongue " is a perfect man, able to bridle 
the whole body also " (James 3 : 2), he evidently 
uses the word " perfect " as meaning " thor- 
ough," " entire," " complete." Thus in the New 
Testament as in the Old. 

An examination of the context of the com- 
mand to " be perfect," in the " Sermon on the 
Mount," will show to any careful reader that it 
is impartiality, or freedom from the imperfect- 
ness of a one-sided view of truth or duty, 
rather than sinlessness, that is enjoined by 
Jesus. He is speaking of the common way of 
loving your friends and hating your enemies. 

" Ye have heard that it was said," he says, 



128 Our Misunderstood Bible 

" Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine 
enemy : but I say unto you, Love your enemies, 
and pray for them that persecute you; that ye 
may be sons of your Father which is in heaven; 
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and 
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the 
unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what 
reward have ye? Do not even the publicans 
the same ? And if ye salute your brethren only, 
what do ye more than others? do not even the 
Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be per- 
fect, as your heavenly Father is perfect " (Matt. 

5: 43-48). 

It is one-sidedness that is warned against. It 
is impartiality or entirety that is enjoined. It 
is wholeness of vision, instead of a squint of 
the eye, that is commended. Gentiles and pub- 
licans and other sinners may be good to those 
whom they like, and be unloving toward others ; 
but the disciples of Jesus are to be loving toward 
all, as the Father of all is loving toward all. 
This is the plain command of Jesus in the words, 
" Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heav- 
enly Father is perfect." He says practically: 
" Be impartial, as your heavenly Father is im- 
partial. Avoid one-sidedness. Let your love 
and fairness take in the entire sweep of the 
circle. ,, 



Bible Perfection Not 5inlessness 129 

There are many Bible calls to holiness, to 
godliness, to purity of thought, but that idea is 
not found in this Bible word " perfect." The 
supposing that the command to preach perfec- 
tion, or to press toward it, is a command to a 
sinless life, is a mistake that has caused no little 
confusion and misunderstanding in the minds 
of simple-hearted believers. The conventional 
term " perfection," and the Bible term "perf ec- 
tion," are two terms of very different' meaning. 



XVI 

DENYING SELF, NOT DENYING 
THING5 TO 5ELF 

To deny one's self is a fundamental Christian 
duty. To deny anything to one's self may be 
a duty or it may not be; it may be right or 
it may be wrong: all depends on the circum- 
stances and nature of such denial, and the object 
of its exercise. Yet both denying self and deny- 
ing to self are popularly spoken of as " self- 
denial ;" and under this term both the biblical 
and the unbiblical ideas of denying self are gen- 
erally included. An all-essential duty in Chris- 
tian discipleship is thus commonly confounded 
with a matter of conditional expediency. 

" If any man would come after me," said 
Jesus, "let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16: 24; Mark 8: 
34; Luke 9: 23). Here Jesus makes the duty 
of denying self an essential requisite of Chris- 
tian discipleship. A man cannot be a follower 
of Jesus unless he denies himself, or, as the 
Greek term indicates, denies himself utterly. 
The requirement is not the denial of anything, 

130 



Denying 5elf, Not Denying Things to Self 131 

cither little or much, to self, but the utter denial 
of self — a very important, and too often un- 
recognized difference. 

As the term stands in the Greek, the injunc- 
tion of our Lord to his every disciple, to " deny 
himself/' includes the idea of turning one's self 
away from one's self, of rejecting self as the de- 
sire of self. It suggests the thought of two 
centers — self and Christ — the one to be denied 
and the other to be accepted, as an object of 
attraction and devotedness. Its use in the orig- 
inal seems to say : " If you would turn toward 
me, you must turn away from yourself. If you 
would accept me as the chief object of desire, 
you must renounce yourself as such an object. 
If you would henceforward live in my service, 
you must at once cease to live for your own 
pleasure and interest." 

It does not directly enjoin the suppression of 
self, or the overcoming of self, or the constant 
battling with self; but it calls to the turning 
away from self, the ceasing to live for self, the 
practical ignoring or forgetting of self as a 
center of interest and ks an object of desire. 
That is the injunction, in its meaning and in its 
application. Self-denial is self-ignoring in hearty 
self-surrender. 

It is a very common mistake concerning the 



132 Our Misunderstood Bible 

nature of self-denial, to suppose that it involves 
a constant thought of self, in order to the entire 
subjection of self. As a matter of fact, he who 
lives the truest life of self-denial has very little 
trouble with himself ; being absorbed in an object 
of interest outside of himself, he forgets him- 
self; living for something worthier of his de- 
votion, he does not give any worrying thought 
to that self from which he has turned away in 
his enthusiastic pursuit of a nobler aim. A sol- 
dier is worth little as a soldier until he forgets 
himself in his interest in his soldier duties. If 
he even thinks of prolonging or protecting his 
life he is more likely to lose his life than if he is 
absorbed in the effort to do his work manfully as 
a soldier. An unselfish interest in our fellows 
causes us to forget ourselves in our loving 
thought of others. An unselfish interest in our 
Friend of friends takes us away from ourselves, 
and fills our mind with a simple purpose of pleas- 
ing and serving him. A life of self-denial is not 
a life of conflict with self ; it is rather a life turned 
away from self in utter self-forgetfulness. 

Self-mortification and self-flagellations and 
self-inflictions or self-deprivations are often 
mistakenly supposed to be elements of self- 
denial, when in truth they are only modes of 
self-nursing or self-seeking. A man who de- 



Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self 133 

sires to win a prize in an athletic contest will 
gladly put himself in training in order to be in 
the best physical condition for that struggle. 
He will deny to himself anything in the line of 
food and drink and luxurious indulgences that 
might lessen his prospects of personal victory. 
But in all this there is no true self-denial; on 
the contrary, it is confessedly a method of per- 
sistent self-advancement. A prize-fighting bully, 
who lives abstemiously while in training for his 
contest can hardly be called a man who denies 
self, and who lives for a nobler object than self- 
aggrandizement. Professional bank robbers and 
burglars are known to be carefully abstemious 
in their personal habits, and to deny themselves 
the use of liquor or tobacco while in the active 
practise of their M profession ;" but who would 
think of claiming that such men were living 
lives of true self-denial, in denying to them- 
selves those indulgences which would hinder 
them in their selfish pursuings? 

He who lives for the acquisition of wealth, or 
for the attainment of knowledge, or for the se- 
curing of honor and fame, is ready to deny to 
himself food, or sleep, or personal ease, if there- 
by he can promote the chief object of his life 
struggle. But whatever else he denies to him- 
self, a worker of this sort does not deny him- 



134 Our Misunderstood Bible 

self to himself. Self is the final center of his 
living and being. 

If, indeed, a man strives always for the pro- 
motion of his highest spiritual welfare, and for 
the completest subjection of himself, his self- 
deprivations and his self-moftifications may be 
nothing more than carefully chosen modes of 
self-improvement, having in them none of the 
qualities or merit of true self-denial. He may 
fast and pray and live a life of retirement and 
deprivation in order to save his spirit or self. 
There is no denial of self in that. It is all self- 
ish living. Such a man is living for self. He is 
seeking to save himself. He lacks the first 
requisite of a Christian disciple. He who turn- 
eth not away from self, refusing even to make 
the eternal saving of himself the chief object 
of living, cannot be a disciple of Jesus. 

A life of true self-denial, or of denial of self, 
may be a life of comparative ease and fulness, 
while a life of endurance and privation may be 
wholly a life of self-seeking. He whose nature 
and tastes would prompt him to a life of activity 
and adventure, may find himself called of God 
to settle down quietly in loving ministry to one 
of Christ's dear ones in need of tender care, but 
whose surroundings are those of relative lux- 
ury. Only by the denial of self can such a man 



Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self 135 

find pleasure in the acceptance of a lot exempt 
from toil and hardship. On the other hand a 
man of social instincts may travel to the end 
of the earth in loneliness and may deprive himself 
sorely as he travels, because he wants, for some 
reason, to hide himself from all who know him, 
or because he is seeking reputation or reward 
in a discovery which he hopes to make. There 
is no denial of self in his deprivations and en- 
durances, as there is in the other man's settling 
down in a home of luxury at the call of God, 
contrary to his personal inclinations. Not what 
a man has, not what he yields, but the aim of 
his life — toward self or away from self — settles 
the question whether he exercises true self- 
denial as the Bible teaches that duty. 

He who would deny himself at the call of 
Christ must turn away from himself in hearty 
rejection and utter forgetfulness of himself as 
an object of life. Not what seems to be for 
his own interest or pleasure, but what his Mas- 
ter directs for him, must occupy his thoughts, 
and claim his best endeavors, at all times. It 
may be that his Lord will call him to labors 
abundantly, and to prisons more abundantly ; to 
stripes and stonings; to journeyings often; to 
perils of rivers ; to perils of robbers ; to perils in 
the city; to perils in the wilderness; to perils 



136 Our Misunderstood Bible 

in the sea; to perils among false brethren; to 
travails and watchings ; to hunger and thirst and 
fastings ; to cold and nakedness. It may be that 
that same Lord will call him to dwell in his own 
hired house in the world's chiefest city, with 
friends at hand in Caesar's palace. 

If, indeed, his self-denial be complete, it will 
matter little to him whether he be in the one 
state or in the other, provided only he be where 
He for whom he lives would have him. With 
all his heart he can say, in either case : " I have 
learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be 
content. I know how to be abased, and I know 
also how to abound; in everything and in all 
things I have learned the secret both to be filled 
and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in 
want. I can do all things in him that strength- 
ened me" (Phil. 4: 11-13). 

True self-denial is the denial of self as an 
object of service or of interest, through a sur- 
render of self to One who alone is worthy of su- 
preme interest and devoted service. It does 
not depend on, or consist of, either fulness or 
lack ; but it accepts the one or the other of these 
conditions gladly, according as the Master for 
whom self has been renounced may ordain and 
indicate. 



XVII 

BEARING THE CR055, NOT 
BEARING CR055E5 

" Bearing the cross/' or " taking up one's 
cross," has a well defined meaning in the Bible. 
It was, at the beginning of the Christian era, an 
expression with a technical signification, com- 
monly understood in the days of the New Tes- 
tament writers. 

" Cross-bearing " is not, in that precise form, 
a Bible term ; but it is now popularly employed 
as the equivalent of the phrase " bearing the 
cross," although with a very different meaning 
attached to it. The diverse meanings connected 
with the supposed equivalent terms is a cause 
of serious misleading in Bible reading, and in 
religious conversation and thought. 

" Cross-bearing " is ordinarily considered the 
bearing of burdens, or the enduring of trials, in 
Christ's service, or for Christ's sake. " Taking 
up the cross," or " bearing the cross," as the 
phrase is employed in the New Testament text, 
or as it was understood at the opening of our 
Christian era, was the surrender or devotion of 
one's life to Christ's service. This distinction is 

137 



138 Our Misunderstood Bible 

an important one as throwing light on the com- 
mand of Jesus, and on the duty of his every 
disciple. 

The " cross," or, more literally, the "stake," 
was the instrument of execution for criminals, 
as that word was employed in classic and in 
Jewish literature. It being customary for a con- 
demned criminal, on his way to the place of 
execution, to carry upon his shoulder the stake 
to which he was to be fastened, or by which 
he was to be transfixed, the term " taking up the 
cross," or " bearing the cross," came to be equiv- 
alent to our modern term " halter-wearing " or 
" going to the gallows." He who bore a cross 
on his shoulder was recognized as one who was 
appointed to die, and he must stand or move 
with that grim fact staring him in the face. 

When Jesus had been sentenced to death, " he 
went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the 
place . . . where they crucified him." (John 
19: 17, 18). Finding that his strength was 
insufficient for the heavy burden, his murderers 
compelled one Simon, of Cyrene, to bear the 
cross for Jesus. (Matt. 2j: 32; Mark 15: 21; 
Luke 23: 26.) This was a natural way under 
such circumstances. The victim himself, or 
some one who was reckoned with him, bore the 
cross, or the stake, on his shoulder, to the place 



Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 139 

of execution. He who thus bore the cross was 
seen to be on his way to give up his life, or he 
was accounted as a sharer with the condemned 
one. 

When Jesus found his disciples expectant of 
honors in his service as the Messiah, and longing 
for places nearest him when he should be up- 
lifted in his kingdom, he told them that they 
little knew what they were asking. His first 
uplifting was to be on a cross. Would they 
be willing to share that experience with him? 
" Ye know not what ye ask," he said. " Are ye 
able to drink the cup that I am about to drink ?" 
(Matt. 20: 22; Mark 10: 38). It costs some- 
thing, he suggested, to be my follower. A man 
who enlists in my service must do so with a 
halter around his neck. If he cares more for 
his life than for me, he is unfitted to be one of 
my disciples. " If any man cometh unto me 
and hateth not [in comparison with me] his 
own father, and mother, and wife, and children, 
and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life 
also, he cannot be my disciple. Whosoever 
doth not bear his own cross and come after me 
cannot be my disciple " (Luke 14: 26, 2j). 

Whoever would follow me must be ready to 
give up his life for my sake, and he must walk 
after me, bearing his cross on his shoulder, as I 



140 Our Misunderstood Bible 

bear mine, to the place of crucifixion. " If any 
man would come after me, let him deny him- 
self and take up his cross and follow me." As 
showing that this had reference to giving up 
life for him and his cause, he added : " For who- 
soever would save his life shall lose it ; and who- 
soever shall lose his life for my sake and the 
gospel's shall save it" (Mark 8: 35; Luke 
9: 23, 24). 

In every instance in which our Lord spoke of 
taking up the cross, or of bearing the cross as a 
test of discipleship, he used the term in this 
sense of voluntary life-surrender. The disciple 
of Christ must put his life at the disposal of 
Christ; he must do as Christ would have him 
do, rather than as he might personally prefer 
to do. He must live and move and be as one 
whose life is no longer at his own disposal. 
This must be his new thought with each new 
day, and it must control his every act and word 
and purpose. Not the suffering that might ac- 
company crucifixion, but the surrender of life 
even to crucifixion for Christ's sake, was signi- 
fied and symbolized in bearing the cross, as our 
Lord enjoined it upon those who would be dis- 
ciples. 

Just here is where the conventional meaning 
of the term " cross-bearing " differs so widely 



Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 141 

from its biblical meaning. A " cross " is no 
longer understood to be a stake, a gibbet, or a 
gallows; but it includes anything that crosses, 
or thwarts, or vexes, or tries, us, in our daily 
life-path ; hence the bearing of a cross is now 
supposed to be the bearing or enduring of trials 
and sufferings, petty or great, for Christ's sake. 
Alexander Cruden, who has perhaps done as 
much to shape popular theology by the defini- 
tions in his Concordance as Milton has to shape 
popular eschatology by his descriptions in Para- 
dise Lost, says that " pains, afflictions, troubles 
and unprosperous affairs, were called crosses " 
in classic days ; but no classical authorities seem 
to justify this claim of Cruden. In the Cen- 
tury Dictionary, with its claim to give the 
consensus of opinion as to the meaning of fa- 
miliar words, we are told that " to bear a cross " 
is " to endure with patience a discomfort or 
trial ;" and this is a fair rendering of the modern 
popular meaning of " cross-bearing." We are, 
moreover, told, in the same Century Dictionary, 
not only that the term " cross " means " any 
suffering voluntarily borne in Christ's name and 
for Christ's sake," but that this was our Lord's 
use of the word when he said, " He that taketh 
not his cross and followeth after me, is not 
worthy of me." And here is a fresh illustration 



142 Our Misunderstood Bible 

of the truth that dictionary-makers are as liable 
as other men to misread Bible texts, in the light 
of popular errors of opinion as to the teachings 
of those texts. 

There is, of course, no such thing as "little 
crosses" in one's daily life course, although one 
often hears such things spoken of. If a cross is 
a cross at all it is big enough to hang on, to die 
on. If it is not large enough for that, it is not a 
cross in the Bible sense, or in the classical sense, 
of that term. 

It is true that cross-bearing, as a synonym of 
voluntary life-surrender, includes whatever of 
suffering, or of trial-enduring, or of personal 
privation, may come to one as a disciple of the 
Lord Jesus Christ; but it is not true that the 
essential thing in cross-bearing is suffering, or 
trial enduring, or personal privation, for Christ's 
sake. Cross-bearing is the signifying of one's 
readiness to live or to die, or to live and to die, in 
Christ's service, with or without suffering — as 
the duty of the hour may require. 

When the members of the Continental Con- 
gress decided to sign the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, they realized that they were thereby 
putting a halter around their necks. As one pf 
their own number then said, " Now, we must all 
hang together, or we shall hang separately." 



Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 143 

Unless they were ready to die, if need be, in de- 
fense of the stand they then took, they were not 
worthy to sign that Declaration. It might, in- 
deed, be their lot to endure much suffering as a 
consequence of that act of theirs; but whether 
they suffered or not personally, they signified 
their readiness to accept the full consequences of 
their action, even to the extent of surrender of 
their lives — thus devoted to the cause of Amer- 
ican independence. 

As Dr. Bushnell suggested, of a later crisis in 
American affairs, the practical issue between the 
two sides in our Civil War was in the question, 
who could furnish the most dead ; yet no one 
would claim that the mere suffering or dying of 
a soldier on the right side of that contest was in 
itself such a proof of his fidelity as he had given 
when he enlisted for the war, with his life pledged 
to the prosecution of that contest to its end. So 
it is in Christian cross-bearing; it is the devotion 
of the life to Christ's service, rather than any suf- 
fering or trial that ensues from such devotion, 
which makes and marks the Christian disciple as 
a Christian disciple. 

In the modern popular understanding of the 
duty of cross-bearing, discomfort or trial or suf- 
fering for Christ's sake is the all-essential feature 
of service ; but in the New Testament presenta- 



144 Our Misunderstood Bible 

tion of this duty, the all-essential thing is the 
voluntary surrender of one's life to Christ's serv- 
ice — suffering or no suffering. In the one case, 
the suffering is looked at as essential; in the 
other case, the suffering is recognized as merely 
incidental. As men ordinarily see it, he is the 
truest cross-bearer who has most trials to endure, 
and who endures them faithfully for his Master. 
As the Bible presents it, he is the truest cross- 
bearer who most heartily puts himself at the 
service of Christ, for joy or for sorrow, for' want 
or for fulness, for life or for death. Cross- 
bearing is not hard asceticism ; it is cheerful and 
unquestioning devotedness. It is not living for 
the purpose of denying oneself; it is living for 
Christ, even though one must deny himself in 
order to such living. 

It is such cross-bearing as this that prepares 
the way for crown-wearing. He who would save 
his life by penances and unnecessary privations 
shall lose it. But he who would surrender his 
life for Christ's sake shall find it in a joyous here 
and hereafter, in the presence and service of 
Christ. 



XVIII 

SACRIFICE AS A MEANS OF 
PERSONAL ENJOYMENT 

Among the Bible words that have been de- 
flected from their primitive meaning is the word 
"sacrifice." The English word is from the two 
Latin words sacer, "sacred," and facio, "to make." 
It means a sacred offering, a consecrated gift to 
God. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word 
generally translated in the Bible "sacrifice" means 
"to slaughter," or to pour out the blood, or the 
life, of a victim, as a holy offering. Yet there is 
another Hebrew word translated "sacrifice" 
which means simply an "offering," bloody or un- 
bloody, including prayer. Strictly speaking, 
therefore, any gift to God, even the gift of 
prayer or praise or love, is a sacrifice. But such 
an offering may be given cheerfully or grudg- 
ingly, and we are so accustomed to give to God 
grudgingly that we have an idea that there must 
be something of that nature, of a grudgingly 
given gift, in every sacrifice. 

Our ordinary idea of a sacrifice is, that it is a 
painful giving up of that which we prize and 
delight in, and which we would like to retain. We 

145 



146 Our Misunderstood Bible 

understand that we can sacrifice our life, our 
health, our ease, our comfort, our worldly means, 
our reputation, our position in life, and that it 
may be our duty to do so. But we do not think 
of sacrifice as in itself a pleasant act, as one that 
is to us more enjoyable than anything else could 
be. We do not count a delightful hour, or day, 
in the society of a friend, the giving of a birthday 
or a Christmas gift to the one we hold dearest, 
the singing a song of rejoicing when we have 
been made happy by another, the sharing our 
abundant or surplus means with a worthy one 
in need, as a sacrifice. But the latter may be as 
truly a sacrifice as the former. Sacrifice does 
not depend on the cost which it involves, but on 
the spirit which prompts it. 

Whether a sacrifice is made unto God or to a 
fellow-being, it has its chief value in being 
counted a sacred or a holy offering. Any offer- 
ing deemed sacred or holy ought, of course, to 
be rendered heartily and with gladness, be it God- 
ward or man-ward, since that which is a duty 
ought to be performed cheerfully and with joy- 
fulness. The more joyous its giving, the more 
truly is it an acceptable gift. "God loveth a 
cheerful [literally a hilarious] giver" (2 Cor. 
9:7), and man, also, loveth a cheerful giver. 
Yet there are offerings in the line of duty that 






Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 147 

furnish us conscious enjoyment, while there are 
others that are consciously made by us at a 
painful cost. Both are sacrifices, but the differ- 
ence is in the different spirit in which they are 
given. Not what the gifts are as an offering, 
but what we are as their offerers, makes the one 
painful and the other pleasurable. 

A main cause of our confusion of mind as to 
the true meaning of sacrifice is that we make self 
our center, instead of making God and God's 
dear ones our center. We want to have that 
which will please ourselves, rather than that 
which will please God, or God's dear ones. When 
we find communion with another pleasurable to 
ourselves, we do not count it a trial to give up 
our time. When we have sincere love for an- 
other, we have delight in giving to that object of 
our love. Communing with God, and giving to 
God, would be also pleasurable if we were con- 
trolled by love for him. 

Sacrifices to God, as called for in the ancient 
law of Israel, were intended to show love for 
God. We are apt to think of the cost of those 
sacrifices, instead of thinking of the spirit shown 
in their making. We forget that love was and is 
the fulfilment of law, and that the pouring out of 
the life of beasts sacrificed according to the law 
was not merely in order to destroy that life, but 



148 Our Misunderstood Bible 

it was in order to render it up as a loving gift to 
God. It was the love prompting the offering, not 
the intrinsic value of the offering itself, that made 
the sacrifice acceptable to God. As it was toward 
God in the sacrifices of old, so is it toward our 
fellows in the sacrifices we are now called to 
make day by day. 

" A true sacrifice to God, " says St. Augustine, 
" is every work which is done that we may be 
united to God in holy fellowship, and which has 
a reference to that supreme end in which alone 
we can be truly blessed. " It ought not to be a 
painful duty to us to do that which evidences 
our highest love, and which best promotes our 
personal welfare. That is the kind of sacrifice 
that God wants from us, and that is the kind of 
sacrifice that we ought to delight in making. But 
this is not the way we ordinarily look at sacrifice. 

Self-denial, for example, is always hard ; but 
self-sacrifice may be hard, or it may be easy. 
Self-denial inevitably involves a battle with self. 
Self-sacrifice does not necessarily call for a strug- 
gle. It may, indeed, be pleasant to devote or sur- 
render one's self, one's powers, one's possessions, 
one's interests, to another's sway, or to a cause 
which seems worthy of one's devotedness. But 
it is a sad illustration of the perversion, if not 
of the degradation, of the human intellect and 



Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 149 

character, that self-sacrifice, self-devotedness 
which is sacred and holy, has so commonly come 
to be counted a necessarily painful and unde- 
sirable outlay of self at the call of dry duty. " I 
suppose I must sacrifice myself," is the way one 
is likely to speak when he feels that this is his 
duty. He would hardly deem it a proper way 
of speaking to say, " I am called to the most 
delightful service imaginable. I am going to sac- 
rifice myself for the cause I love best," or, " to 
the person dearest to me." 

The common way is as though a man were to 
say explicitly : " For me to be devoted to another 
in love, or in friendship ; for me to be devoted to 
my country, to the welfare of my fellow-beings, 
or even to my God, — is contrary to all my in- 
stincts and impulses and conscious desires. I do 
not want to be devoted to any one or to anything 
outside of my immediate personal self. In order 
to any sacred devotedness I must subject myself 
to a constant denial of the real longings of my 
lower and of my stronger self. " 

Even if this had to be recognized as the true — 
and, as human nature is, as the inevitable — state 
of the case, its simple recognition would tend to 
aid one in struggling against the disclosure and 
continued existence of such a pitiable condition 
of affairs. But, thanks be to God, it is not true 



150 Our Misunderstood Bible 

that self-sacrifice always involves conscious self- 
denial, or always necessitates an obvious struggle 
with self. Self-sacrifice is, in one form or an- 
other, the truest joy of every true man or true 
woman ; and, the truer one is in real manhood or 
in real womanhood, the more potent is the sway 
of self-sacrifice in his or her life-course, and the 
less prominent in that sphere is the struggle in 
the direction of self-denial. 

To love devotedly, and to deem one's loving a 
sacred devotedness, is to be self-sacrificing in 
love, but it is not necessarily to be consciously 
self-denying in one's love, even though at times 
it may be so. A young mother, for example, is 
self-sacrificing in her love for her child. In the 
exhibit of her self-sacrificing love, she may have 
to deny herself sleep which her tired physical 
nature craves. The specific self-denial, in this 
instance, costs her a struggle ; but the controlling 
self-sacrifice, of which the self-denial is an in- 
cident, does not. The one is not easy ; the other 
is. The one is not in itself a delight; the other 
is a real joy. And as the mother's self-sacrificing 
devotedness gains in power by its exercise, — as 
all good is sure to gain, — the sense of self-denial, 
or even the need of self-denial as such, is less 
and less, the very self of the devoted one com- 
ing into subjection to, or into conformity with, 



Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 151 

the spirit and purpose of the self-sacrificing — 
the self-surrendered — devotion in love. 

The young patriot who is swayed by a self- 
sacrificing devotion to his country in its peril, 
may have to deny himself daily while in the 
course of his training as a soldier; but because 
of the all-swaying power of his hearty and joy- 
ous self-sacrifice, as a patriotic soldier, he hardly 
thinks of the incidental self-denial involved in 
its exhibit. And by and by the sorrowful self- 
denial on his part is practically at an end, being 
overwhelmed by, and swallowed up in, his glad- 
some self-sacrifice. So, again, is it with the 
young student, in training for a part in an inter- 
collegiate boat-race or football game. Any self- 
denial in the course of his training is of minor 
importance, in his mind, in comparison with his 
self-sacrifice, or with his self-devotedness, in 
behalf of the college of which he is a joyous 
representative. 

Whenever, in fact, an all-absorbing devoted- 
ness has control of a man's affections and pur- 
poses, his consequent self-sacrifice in that direc- 
tion practically precludes the idea of self-denial 
in the same direction. Self is forgotten, in love 
for that which is dearer than self. The busy 
man who finds not a minute to spare from his 
pressing office duties, and who would deem it 



152 Our Misunderstood Bible 

an act of self-denial to give audience to any 
ordinary special visitor, springs with delight from 
his seat at the entrance of one whom he loves 
devotedly in a self-sacrificing friendship. There 
is no thought of self-denial in the glad surrender 
of his time in such an instance ; his self-surrender 
is but a joyous self-sacrifice. So is it with one 
who makes glad gifts to a loved one in proof of 
his self-sacrificing devotedness to the recipient. 
So, moreover, it is with every self-forgetful de- 
votee everywhere and always. 

As it is man-ward, so it is God-ward. There 
is practically no conscious self-denial in intelli- 
gent right-minded and all-controlling self- 
sacrifice toward God. Loving God as we ought 
to love him, — as we shall love him if we give 
him due thought in his relation to ourselves, — we 
can only joy in the privilege of showing our love 
for him in every way possible ; and then the more 
we can do for him, or endure for him, the more 
we shall have of joy in the exhibit of our pre- 
vailing self-sacrifice toward him. 

Just here it is that the Jews of old were con- 
stantly making the mistake which is so common 
among Christians to-day. God had shown to 
them that they might evidence their self-devoted- 
ness to him by bringing their offerings as sacri- 
fices to his sanctuary. They fell into the error 



Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 153 

of looking upon these proofs of their devotedness 
as having a value because of their intrinsic worth. 
They practically lost sight of the essential dif- 
ference between self-denial and self-sacrifice. 
Therefore it was that the Lord, by his prophets, 
repeatedly reminded them of the true import of 
all sacrifices, and of the folly of looking at them 
in any other light. " What unto me is the mul- 
titude of your sacrifices? ... I delight 
not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, 
or of he-goat' . . . Bring no more vain 
oblations. . . Cease to do evil : learn to do 

well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge 
the fatherless, plead for the widow. " (Isaiah I : 
11-17.) 

" Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put 
your trust in Jehovah. " (Psalm 4:5.) 

And it was in this view of the truth that the 
inspired Psalmist could say in all earnestness, 

" The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : 

" A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou 
wilt not despise. " (Psalm 51 : 17.) 

" And now shall mine head be lifted up above 
mine enemies round about me ; 

11 And I will offer in his tabernacle sacrifices 
of joy; 

" I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto 
Jehovah." (Psalm 27: 6.) 



154 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Thanksgiving to God is a sacrifice well-pleas- 
ing to God. Praise is sacrifice. Jesus Christ had 
joy in sacrificing himself for us. Our greatest 
enjoyment ought to be found in continual self- 
sacrifice to God, and in Christ-like self- 
sacrifices for those whom God loves, and hence 
whom we ought to love. 



XIX 
LOVE NOT A MATTER OF FELLING 

There are few words in the English language 
of so great importance, or which are so vague in 
meaning to the average person, as the word 
" love. " " God is love, " and " love is of God. " 
Love is the very nature of God, and love is the 
highest attribute and the foremost duty of man. 
Love is the fulfilling of the law, Godward and 
manward. Love is the greatest thing in the 
world, and the holiest. Yet on the other hand, 
" love " is used as a synonym of lust, and of 
unholy desire, and of sinful craving; and men 
are warned against the misleadings of love, with 
its manifold dangers to the soul. What is this 
" love," with so much of good in it, and of evil? 
What does the word itself mean, and how comes 
it that it represents both that which is right, and 
that which is wrong; that which is to be sought, 
and that which is to be shunned ? 

A popular idea of " love " is that it is a matter 
of feeling or of emotion ; that it is not within the 
control of the will, but rather that it is a result 
of attraction or of fancy, regardless of reason 
or of purpose. Yet the Bible repeatedly com- 

155 



156 Our Misunderstood Bible 

mands love as a duty, and again it warns against 
love as a temptation; therefore, it is not to be 
supposed that love, either in its good sense or its 
bad, is merely a matter of feeling. 

The truth is, there is " love, " and there is 
"love. " Both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, 
there are several words, of different shades of 
meaning, which are, alike translated " love; " and 
this is a prime cause of the ambiguity of the 
English word which is taken to represent them 
all. The root idea of the Hebrew word which 
stands for divine love, and for the holiest love 
of which man is capable, is that of " giving, " of 
" outgiving; " it applies to an unselfish attitude 
of being, rather than to an emotion, or feeling, 
of the soul. The idea of another Hebrew word, 
also translated " love," is that of lust, or of 
selfish indulgence. These two words, of diamet- 
rically opposite meanings, are translated by a 
single word in our English tongue; and it 
is much the same with the Greek as with the 
Hebrew. What wonder that the average Eng- 
lish reader is confused in finding " love " used in 
one connection in the sense of an unselfish out- 
giving of devotion, and in another connection in 
the sense of selfish craving or of sinful desire ! 

Our English word " love " is represented in the 
Sanskrit, with the original meaning of " covet- 



Love Not a Matter of Feeling 157 

ousness, " or of " selfish longing. " Another San- 
skrit word for " love " stands for our word 
" friendship, " with the central thought of a gen- 
erous outgiving of self. Hence there is " love " 
that is love, and there is " love " that is not love. 
There is love that represents an attitude of being 
which is approved of God and of man ; and there 
is love that represents a mere state of feeling 
which is not meritorious or gainful. The love 
which God bears to man is not a matter of feel- 
ing, but an attitude of being ; and it is such love 
that God commands and commends in men. 

The central idea of " loving, " in its best sense, 
is that of " holding dear. " That which we count 
precious, and are willing to give ourselves to, or 
to give to of our time and means, we may be said 
to love, apart from any question of our emotions 
or feelings. A man who really loves his country, 
holds his country dear, and is willing to risk, or 
to lay down, his life for it. But he may have no 
thrills of feeling as he thinks of his country ; and 
he may be unable to convince himself that his 
patriotism is all-prevailing by any process of 
analyzing his emotions. So of one who loves 
his parents, or his wife, or his children, sacredly. 
The proof of his love is in what he is willing to 
do for them, and to be toward them, and not in 
how he feels about them. Thus, also, in a man's 



158 Our Misunderstood Bible 

love to God, and in a man's love to those whom 
God loves, — it is in holding God dear, and in 
holding dear God's dear ones, that the power of 
true love is evidenced; the feelings have very 
little to do with the matter. 

Even where love is strongest, the feelings 
may work against the will, and the will may have 
to exert itself in behalf of the love as against 
the emotions. A soldier's feelings may prompt 
him to run from danger, when duty calls him to 
meet it bravely. His love for his country at such 
a time is shown in the exercise of his will against 
his feelings. A husband or a father is many h. 
time called to show love by doing, or by being, 
as true love prompts, when his feelings incline 
him to show a very different state. So in every 
testing hour, as to man's love to God. The 
question is, What is he ready to do, or to be, in 
proof of his holding God dear ? not, How does 
he feel about it all just now ? 

" Loving " and " liking " are often used as if 
they merely indicated different degrees of affec- 
tion. To " like, " the dictionary tells us, is " to 
be pleased with in a moderate degree ; " while to 
" love " is " to delight in, " or to have a " devoted 
attachment. " " I like him, but I do not love 
him, " says one ; thereby meaning that the inter- 
est felt in him is a very slight interest. " No 



Love Not a Matter of Feeling 159 

one who knows him can merely like him ; they 
must love him, " says another, who would thus 
indicate that the feeling inspired by him must 
always be of the superlative degree. This under- 
standing of the two words relatively is very well 
as far as it goes; but neither word has only a 
single meaning. Each word means one thing at 
one time, and another thing at another time ; 
and unless we recognize the fact of these differ- 
ing significations of the two words severally, we 
lose the power of using them or of noting their 
use discriminatingly. 

" Liking " is sometimes employed as expres- 
sive of a feeling of personal satisfaction with a 
thing ; in contrast with " loving " as expressive 
of a feeling of unselfish affection for it ; the one 
representing the subjective, and the other the 
objective, phase of its enjoyment. Thus we may 
be said to love nature, and to like the fruits that 
nature brings to us. It is this view of the case 
that is taken by the poet Wordsworth, when he 
illustrates to a child a difference between loving 
and liking: 

"Say not you love a roasted fowl, 
But you may love a screaming owl. 

Nor blush if o'er your heart be stealing 
A love for things that have no feeling: 



160 Our Misunderstood Bible 

The spring's first rose by you espied, 
May fill your breast with ioyful pride; 
And you may love the strawberry-flower, 
And love the strawberry in its bower; 
But when the fruit so often praised 
For beauty, to your lip is raised, 
Say not you love the delicate treat, 
But like it, enjoy it, and thankfully eat. 

You love your father and your mother, 
Your grown-up and your baby brother; 
You love your sister and your friends, 
And countless blessings which God sends: 
And while those right affections play, 
You live each moment of your day ; 
They lead you on to full content, 
And likings fresh and innocent, 
That store the mind, the memory feed, 
And prompt to many a gentle deed. 
But likings come and pass away; 
'Tis love that remains till our latest day: 
Our heavenly guide is holy love, 
And will be our bliss with saints above." 

This distinction also is a fitting one ; but it does 
not exhaust or limit the meanings of the two 
words severally. " Liking " has a force in con- 
trast with " loving " that goes deeper and out- 
reaches farther than would be indicated by these 
suggestions. 

To " like " is often used as expressive of satis- 
faction with another, or with another's ways ; as 



Love Not a Matter of Feeling 161 

growing out of a similarity of recognized ideals. 
"I like to see a man as thoughtful of others as 
he is ; " "I like his high sense of honor ; " "I 
like his reverent spirit ; " " I like such sensitive- 
ness and delicacy as he shows ; " "I like him, 
because of his unselfish devotion to his mother ;" 
— such expressions as these indicate a great 
deal more than a selfish pleasure in the conduct 
of the one criticised. They have even greater 
force than would have the phrase " I love him 
dearly. " " Liking " another, in this sense, is 
approving the standard of the one liked ; and so 
far it is a step beyond loving him. 

We can even love another without liking him ; 
and we can be loved while we are not liked. A 
wife can love a worthless or an unloving hus- 
band, when she cannot like him. A mother can 
dearly love a reprobate and ungrateful son, whom 
it is impossible for her to like. To love is to hold 
dear. To like is to approve and commend. Lov- 
ing does not always carry liking with it, any 
more than liking always carries loving. We can 
approve and commend and like one toward whom 
we have no feelings of love ; and we may even be 
better liked by those who do not love us than by 
those who do. 

It is pleasant to be loved. It is good to be 
liked. Best of all is it to be both loved and liked. 



162 Our Misunderstood Bible 

We can be loved by those whose judgments con- 
demn us. We shall be liked by those whose judg- 
ments approve our ideals, and whose discern- 
ment recognizes our steady struggling toward 
those ideals. If the choice must be made by us, 
it were better to deserve to be liked by the wise 
and good, than to win love apart from the ques- 
tion of our deserts. If, however, we deserve to 
be liked, we are not likely to live and die unloved 
in the world. 

It has been said that we ought so to live that 
God will not only love, but like us. This is an- 
other way of saying that our lives ought to be so 
conformed to God's image in Christ, that our 
likeness to him will have his recognition 
and approval and liking. God loves us even 
now, because of what he is. If we are like- 
minded with his Son, God will so far like us for 
what we are. 

In reading Bible commands to love, or Bible 
warnings against love, we ought to bear in mind 
the two kinds of love, and know that we should 
love, in the sense of holding dear, what God holds 
dear; and that we are not to give way to a crav- 
ing desire for aught that God disapproves. In 
reading Bible references to liking, or to becom- 
ing liked, we are to know that we have no right 
to like, or to be like, what God cannot like. The 



Love Not a Matter of Feeling 163 

more we love as God loves, the more we shall be 
like God in our loving and in our likings. 



XX 

WHOM DOES GOD LOVE? 

A prominent Sunday-school worker, who was 
accustomed, in former years, to visit Sunday- 
schools, and to address the little ones there, 
sometimes startled the little folks in the primary 
department, and even their teachers, by his 
unlooked-for questions and statements. 

" What kind of children does God love ? " he 
would ask. 

"Good children," "Good children," would 
come back the answer from the confident little 
ones in every part of the room. 

"Doesn't God love any children but good 
children ? " the visitor would ask. 

" No, sir," would be the hearty response. 

Then the visitor would startle or shock the 
little ones, and sometimes their teacher, by say- 
ing plainly and deliberately : 

" I think that God loves bad children very 
dearly. " 

At this, some of the surprised little ones would 
draw lip their mouths, and perhaps exclaim 
" Oh ! " Others would simply stare in bewilder- 
ment. Perhaps the teacher would have a look of 
wonder or regret, and wait for the next dis- 

164 



Whom Does God Love? 165 

closure of ignorance or error on the speaker's 
part. 

" Did I say that God loved to have little chil- 
dren bad ? " was the visitor's next question. 

" No, sir;" " No, sir," would come back from 
some of the startled little ones in a tone of relief. 

" No, I didn't say that God loves to have chil- 
dren bad. God loves to have children good. He 
wants them to be very good, — as good as they 
can be. But when they are bad children God still 
loves them. God is very loving, and he keeps on 
loving little ones who don't even love him at all." 

That would be a new idea to many of those 
little ones. And there is nothing that a child is 
quicker to catch, or gladder to receive, than a 
bright, new idea at any time. The average child 
would take in the thought suggested quicker and 
more willingly than the average teacher. Then 
that visitor would make the thought plainer to the 
pupils by an illustration. 

" Does your mother love you ? " he would ask. 

Almost every child would promptly answer, 
" Yes, sir, " to that question. 

" Were you ever a bad child ? " was the next 
home thrust. 

" Yes, sir, " would come back faintly from 
some. 

" Did your mother stop loving you then ? Did 



166 Our Misunderstood Bible 

you have to feel that there was no loving mother 
to go back to, because you were a bad child ? " 

The child heart recoiled from that thought, 
knowing the mother heart too well to admit it. 
Then was the time to press the precious truth 
that God loves bad children more than the lov- 
ingest father or the lovingest mother in the world 
loves a child; that, even when the father and 
mother forsake a needy child, the Lord will take 
up that child tenderly. That Sunday-school 
worker found, in his wide field of observation, 
how common and how deep seated is the idea 
that a child's acceptance with God is rather be- 
cause of the child's lovableness than because of 
God's lovingness. Nor is this fearful error to be 
found merely, or chiefly, among primary-class 
pupils and their teachers. 

In Mr. Moody's authorized Life, by his son, 
W. R. Moody, this incident is mentioned, which 
shows the existence of the error where it would 
have been least looked for. Henry Moorehouse 
of Great Britain had preached in Mr. Moody's 
mission during his temporary absence from the 
city. This was in 1866, or a little later. Mr. 
Moody tells of his asking Mrs. Moody about Mr. 
Moorehouse, when he returned to Chicago. She 
said, as if she had heard a new truth proclaimed 
in that pulpit: 



Whom Does God Love? 167 

"Well, he tells the worst sinners that God 
loves them. " 

" Then, " said I, " he is wrong. " 

" I think you will agree with him when you 
hear him, " said she, " because he backs up every- 
thing he says with the Bible. 

Mr. Moody soon came to believe that what he 
had deemed an error of Henry Moorehouse's was 
the truth of God in Jesus Christ the Saviour of 
sinners, — not of saints, but of sinners. Because 
Mr. Moody came to this conviction, thousands 
of sinners, who heard him declare it, came to 
Jesus Christ to be saved. 

The Christian Church is by too many looked 
at as an exhibition place, where Christians are 
shown off as Christians, instead of as a hospital 
where the spiritually halt and maimed and deaf 
and blind and leprous are treated for their sick- 
ness and failings. This keeps out of the church 
a great many who belong there, and would 
gladly be under treatment there, if only they 
realized its mission for them. The church also 
has in its membership many who have come 
there with a wrong idea of what they proclaim 
and disclose by their church-membership. 

The writer heard that a former neighbor of 
his had, when past the middle of life, con- 
nected himself with the church. Meeting the 



168 Our Misunderstood Bible 

neighbor, he expressed his gratification at the 
step he had taken. This was the response that 
came back in a self-satisfied tone: 

" Well, I thought it over a good while. I 
know I have my faults, but I'm better than the 
average, and so I thought I'd join the church. " 

It was not easy, in the days of Jesus, for those 
who thought themselves better than the average 
to see how it was possible for Jesus to show a 
loving interest in sinners while they were yet 
sinners. But Jesus could see it. It was sinners 
whom he loved, and whom he came to save. This 
truth, pupils and teachers, sinners and those who 
think themselves better than ordinary sinners, 
have yet to realize more fully than most of 
them do. 



XXI 

ARE CHILDREN BORN CONDEMNED 
OR REDEEMED ? 

" As in Adam, all die, so also in Christ shall all 
be made alive" (i Cor. 15: 22). Simple and 
intelligible as this statement of the apostle to the 
heathen people seems to be, it has been a cause 
of much difference and discussion among Bible 
students and theologians for centuries. It is by 
many held to be a sweeping and general state- 
ment, not to be taken literally, but by one means 
or another to be conformed to more exact de- 
nominational tenets. By others it is accepted as 
indicating, in its fulness, the abounding love of 
God for the human race. In view of its import- 
ance and of the wide differences of opinion as 
to its general meaning, the truth as to this state- 
ment is always worthy of consideration. 

It was in love — which God is — that as the 
crowning act of creation God formed man in his 
own image, as the head and representative of the 
human race, giving him high privileges, and en- 
joining upon him obedience to specific law as the 
cost of preserved life. Adam, knowing the cost, 
deliberately and wilfully sinned and incurred the 

169 



170 Our Misunderstood Bible 

" wages of sin." In that sin of Adam the race 
of man, of which he was the head, came under 
condemnation. But God's love never failed or 
wavered. While the first pair, the twain-one, 
were yet alone in the condemned race, God in his 
love gave promise and assurance of redemption ; 
and when the first child was born to that con- 
demned and redeemed head of the race, it was 
born into a redeemed race. 

But a redeemed race was not a saved race. A 
child redeemed by a Christ promised, or by a 
present Christ, was not a child saved from the 
power of sinning and of receiving the wages of 
sin. The first child, Cain, whom Eve rejoiced 
over as the possible Christ, proved to be the first 
murderer. Cain, and every child born since then, 
was relieved from the penalty of Adam's sin, but 
like Adam was put on trial for himself and must 
choose whether he would obey and trust or would 
prefer sin and its disclosed wages. This is the 
sweeping truth as to the race condemned in 
Adam and redeemed in Christ. No child is con- 
demned for his father's sin ; but every child is 
liable to sin for himself when he comes to the 
age of intelligent choice. Thus it has been from 
the beginning in all lands, and everywhere, and 
thus it is to-day, as God sees and knows the 
inner being of each and of all. 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 171 

Of course, there are sad consequences of for- 
mer transgressions which increase the weakness 
and temptability to sin of the children of sinning 
parents, but all that is not wilful or deliberate 
transgression, nor does it merit condemnation. 
God, who knows and judges the real person, un- 
derstands as to all that. On the other hand, 
there are privileges and blessings in Christ to 
those who know Christ in his fulness, and who 
trust him in his love and his promises beyond 
those who never knew him and who never 
trusted him. Parents may, if they will, include 
their children with themselves in their faith, and 
may trust God as fully for their children as for 
themselves. This is the truth as I have come 
to realize it, and to rejoice in it, and as I now 
desire to press it upon others. 

MY FORMER VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT 

In 1868, by special request, I read an essay 
on " Childhood Conversion " before the Massa- 
chusetts State Convention of Sunday-school 
teachers at Woburn. That essay was published 
as a booklet, and in that form it had quite a 
circulation beyond the number of its original 
hearers. But later Bible scholarship has rendered 
some of its phraseology obsolete. Moreover, 
my own experiences with my children, and in the 



172 Our Misunderstood Bible 

fuller enjoyment of faith in our blessed Saviour 
for ourselves and for our children, have broad- 
ened and deepened my convictions of the relation 
of children to Christ and of Christ to children. 
Hence I desire to restate the truths treated in 
that essay, so as to present them in fuller accord 
with the light of God's teachings. 

Our revised Bible Text shows that the com- 
mand to " be converted " was an erroneous 
translation, which misled our fathers, and caused 
them to mislead their children. In place of the 
command to be converted or to be born again, 
the true text tells us and ours to "turn," as a 
positive active duty, instead of waiting passively 
for a work to be wrought upon us which only 
God can compass. Turning trustfully is our 
duty, whenever we are on the wrong track, or are 
swerving from the right course. God, who 
watches us lovingly, will supply whatever help or 
power is needful. 

Even at the time when I read the essay the 
phraseology of which was affected by the old 
Bible translation, I had already learned as a be- 
liever to trust my Saviour for my children from 
the beginning as I trusted him for myself as a 
sinner. A little incident in connection with the 
reading of the essay made that clear as to my 
personal belief. As I took my seat on the plat- 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 173 

form, after reading the essay, a hearer in the 
body of the house called out : 

" Will the speaker inform us how young a child 
can be Christ's own ? " 

" It is not for me to fix the day or the hour/' 
I said. " But for my own conviction I can say 
that my youngest child is not yet twelve hours 
old; and I have no doubt that he has been 
Christ's a considerable time." 

A child had been born to me in Hartford about 
eleven o'clock the night before ; and I had taken 
the midnight train for Boston just after that. 
It was after this remark that a prominent Bap- 
tist pastor of Boston came to me and said : 

" You take the right view of the case, Brother 
Trumbull. I heard a good Baptist doctor of 
divinity say years ago, ' John the Baptist 
preached Christ while still in the womb.' " (See 
Luke i : 15, 41, 44.) I thought of that remark 
when later I heard Dr. Horace Bushnell say in 
an interdenominational meeting of clergymen, in 
his peculiar phrase : 

" I don't know what right we've got to say 
that a child can't be born again before he's born 
the first time." 

Of course even the duty to "be converted," 
as understood, or as misunderstood by our fath- 
ers, was not the same as being " born again." 



174 Our Misunderstood Bible 

But the two terms were often confused. Con- 
version is now seen to be the simple act of turn- 
ing toward God. Regeneration, or the second 
birth, is wholly the work of God. A child of 
man has no more to do with it than he had with 
his first birth. For the first birth the human 
father is responsible ; for the second birth the 
Divine Father is responsible. It is not for the 
child to feel that he has a personal duty in the 
matter in either instance. It is for him to recog«» 
nize his personal duty as growing out of his 
human father's, or of his Divine Father's, act. 
Heaven and earth, God and child, seemed differ- 
ent to me when I realized this great truth. 

LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE BIBLE 

In consequence of my early training on the 
subject, I was long in doubt as to the personal 
relation of children to Christ before they are old 
enough to make an intelligent choice of him as 
their Saviour. I heard it so many times said in 
the pulpit or prayer-meeting, and I so often read 
it in religious papers and books, that children 
are born as lost souls, that I actually came to 
believe that there was some truth in that horrible 
dogma. Even after my marriage and the birth 
of my first two children I had not been wholly 
released from this unreasonable and unbiblical 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 175 

error. The attempts to evade the sweep of this 
sentence of death, by theories which would in- 
clude more or less of the young as exceptions to 
the general rule, did not give me any real hope. 
It was obviously too unreasonable and too 
shadowy to satisfy me. Hence I sat in the dark 
while I longed for the light. 

Various phases of the idea of regeneration of 
an unintelligent child by a formal rite of circum- 
cision or of baptism did not help the case. 
Passages of Scripture cited and misused in sup- 
port of this wrong view did not, to my mind, 
meet the case. I could only pity those who 
found help through such errors ; but for years I 
sought vainly anything more satisfactory or con- 
vincing. 

My first real light on the subject of God's lov- 
ing plans for children and of his thoughts of them 
when he was purposing to repair the wrong 
wrought for them by our first father, Adam, 
came through the suggestion to me of the mean- 
ing of inspired words in Malachi. The persons 
who pointed me to this passage were the Rev. 
Dr. Leonard Woolsey Bacon and the Rev. Dr. 
William W. Patton, both of whom had been per- 
sonally helped through seeing the light from this 
passage after suffering in the darkness under the 
shadow of the old popular dogma. 



176 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Malachi (2: 15), speaking of the covenant 
union by which husband and wife are made one, 

says : " And did he not make one ? 

And wherefore one ? He sought a godly seed." 
The very purpose of God in marriage among his 
dear ones is the increase of " godly seed " ; not 
as children who start life as lost, or condemned, 
children who when they grow up may be won to 
Christ as heathen are won through missionaries, 
but are from the first a " godly seed/' godly chil- 
dren of covenant parents. The recognition of 
this truth put the unity of the family in a new 
light to me; and also the position and privilege 
of the children of believing parents in God's sight 
and plan. Malachi is the last writer of the 
prophets before the coming of Jesus. He it is 
who tells of the coming of John the Baptist, 
who " shall turn the heart of the fathers to the 
children, and the heart of the children to their 
fathers." (Mai. 4: 6.) 

Then as I recognized this glad truth, I was 
met with the claim that in consequence of the 
sin of the first Adam, all children — even of be- 
lieving parents — are born condemned, and must 
be lost sinners unless they individually turn from 
death to life, from Satan to the Saviour. 
At this I longed to believe that as much for good 
was wrought to the race by the Second Adam 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 177 

as had been wrought for evil by the first Adam. 
I had been brought up to believe that Christ was 
more, not less, than Adam in both his work and 
his influence. If I had been mistaken as to this 
I must learn Bible truth all over again. Then I 
newly turned to the Bible for light on this sub- 
ject. I saw that the Scriptures left no doubt on 
this point. The pervasive, cleansing power of 
Christ for good was every way greater than that 
of evil wrought to the race by Adam. In con- 
sequence of this, " where sin abounded 
[through Adam] grace [through Christ] did 
abound more exceedingly. " (Rom. 5 : 20.) This 
gave me new light and love in my better under- 
standing of the work and grace of Christ. 

From this new starting-point I studied the 
Scriptures with added profit and gratitude, find- 
ing them fully consistent with the, to me, freshly- 
disclosed truth, in preference to the old error, by 
whomsoever taught or held. It proved to me 
that there is a new covenant of grace, bringing 
light and life to such as me and mine. And now 
I am confident that through God's love in 
Jesus Christ every child of Adam's descendants 
comes into being as free from guilt and its con- 
demnation as Adam was created. Of course 
there are all the added tendencies toward sin, 
and all the physical and mental weaknesses which 



178 Our Misunderstood Bible 

grow out of wrong habits indulged by successive 
generations of human parents; but spiritually 
every human child starts as free and with as much 
ground for hope as Adam started. Until, there- 
fore, a child has deliberately and wilfully chosen 
to sin he is not a sinner, and does not stand 
under condemnation. 

As to this precious truth, I am now, and I long 
have been, as confident as of the truth that Jesus 
Christ is the Saviour. How much more God's 
love seems to me since God's word disclosed to 
me this truth! And how much more is the 
recognized work of Christ, and how much vaster 
is the scope of his redemption, than when limited 
and perverted by the pernicious errors of human 
illogical and unscriptural dogmas under which I 
was brought up — or kept down! 

A favorite perversion of Scripture by those 
who deny or belittle Christ's redemption of 
Adam's condemned posterity is an ejaculation of 
the Psalmist in one of the penitential psalms : 

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity: 
And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa. 
Si: 5) 

This psalm is supposed to have been written 
by David when he had been personally guilty of 
yielding to lust, and of committing adultery and 
murder, and of showing himself faithless and 



Are Children Bom Condemned or Redeemed ? 1 79 

treacherous to a trustful and devoted follower. 
The expression is a common Oriental one, as 
indicative of self-abasement, in view of inex- 
cusable personal transgression. One who has 
been notoriously guilty of unparalleled treachery 
will confess that he is of a family that for gen- 
erations could never be trusted. In this he means 
to intensify his confession of being different 
from all his fellow r s. It is evident that whatever 
else the psalmist intended to say, he did not 
mean to assert that his neighbors were all of a 
like sinning stock with himself. It is suggestive 
of a strange tendency of the human mind to 
ignore Bible teachings, and common sense, while 
seeking to uphold at any cost a doctrine that 
one's fathers believed, but which will not stand 
the light of truth. The frequency with which 
this personal penitential psalm is cited in digests 
of doctrine as if it supported the theory that all 
children belong to a race which Christ did not 
redeem, shows how difficult it is to find a Bible 
passage that even seems to suggest such an idea. 
Whatever else is taught in the Bible as to the 
present condition of Adam's posterity, a passage 
that does not teach or suggest the condemnation 
of the race is Psalm 51 : 5, 

" Behold / was born in iniquity, 
And in sin did my mother conceive me." 



180 Our Misunderstood Bible 

It is strange that one who believes that doctrine 
should consent to cite that ejaculation which 
tends to throw discredit on the theory. 

The real truth stands out in the pages of the 
Old Testament and of the New for the cheer of 
those who would know what God would teach 
us concerning his love and plans for the young- 
est children. The " Evangelical Prophet " says 
as to this (Isa. 28: 9), speaking, by inspiration, 
of God's messenger to men, " Whom will he 
teach knowledge ? and whom will he make to 
understand the message ? Them that are weaned 
from the milk and drawn from the breast ? " 
There does not seem to be much doubt about 
very young children being included there. Isaiah 
did not appear to want them to wait even until 
they could recite the catechism before they were 
tc be counted God's children. 

When Jesus, to whose coming Isaiah had 
looked forward, came to earth, he made the mat- 
ter yet more clear. His disciples thought that 
very young children were less hopeful objects of 
grace than were their fathers, and they would 
have pushed back parents who came to Jesus 
with children in their arms to seek his blessing. 
But " when Jesus saw it [the action of his dis- 
ciples] he was moved with indignation, and said 
unto them, Suffer the little children to come 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 181 

unto me ; forbid them not ; for to such belongeth 
the kingdom of God." (Mark 10: 14.) Yet 
these were little children. It does not appear 
that they had themselves given any sign of a 
changed nature or purpose; but their parents 
brought them in love and faith. And Jesus wel- 
comed them just as they were. He did not say 
they might when they grew up become worthy 
of God's recognition or forgiveness. He said 
unqualifiedly of such as they : " For to such 
belongeth [even now just as they are] the king- 
dom of God." 

Such words as Jesus then spoke would now be 
rebuked by many a theological professor, or 
ordained minister. They do seem very broad 
views, fearlessly expressed; but to those who 
want to know what Jesus thinks on the subject 
there his words stand. And all his teachings are 
in the same line. At one time the disciples of 
Jesus came and asked him about standards of 
worth in God's kingdom, saying, " Who then 
is greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And he 
called to him a little child and set him in the midst 
of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except 
ye [the chosen disciples] turn, and become as 
little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the 
kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18: 1-4.) Jesus 
did not say that when a child became as fit 



182 Our Misunderstood Bible 

a subject of grace as a clergyman or a theological 
professor there was reasonable ground of hope 
for him. But Jesus did say that unless choice 
ministers and theological teachers of his time 
turned and became as the little child — a veritable 
flesh and blood little child — there was no hope 
for them. 

On the day of Pentecost, when the long- 
promised outpouring of God's Spirit came, as 
foretold by the prophet Joel, Peter, leader of the 
Apostles, and led by the Holy Spirit, declared 
specifically to the great multitude gathered under 
the new dispensation, " To you is the promise, 
and to your children" (Acts 2: 39). And all 
the Bible teachings from that day on were in the 
same line. God be praised, the " Second Adam " 
did as much of good for every child of man be- 
fore his birth as the first Adam did of evil ! How 
unworthy would it be of our conception of Christ 
if we could not believe this ! 

Paul urges Christian parents to bring up their 
children in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord (Eph. 6:4). He does not urge them to 
win them from condemnation to redemption, but 
to bring them up in Christ, wherein they already 
are. 

The inspired author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews shows how all the promises to Abraham 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 183 

and his seed are more than made good in Christ 
to all who are Abraham's seed in faith. As 
sharers in the parents' flesh and blood by 
nature, the children can be sharers with the par- 
ents in the realm of grace in Christ. Unhesitat- 
ingly confident in this truth the believing parent 
can bring his children to God, nothing doubting, 
saying in faith, as he prays with them and for 
them, saying, " I will put my trust in Him ; and 
again, Behold, I and the children whom God hath 
given me." (Heb. 2: 13.) God never refused 
to accept such a parent or such a child. We can 
be as sure of that as that God is God. 

CORRECT VILW5 BY MANY OF 
GOD'S CHILDREN 

It is true that many have been so misled by 
erroneous man-made dogmas and human systems 
of doctrine that they hesitate to accept the truth 
as taught in God's word, and as in accordance 
with our knowledge of God's love and God's 
power. But there are many, very many, who 
accept the truth as God declares it, and as we 
are justified in receiving it. All who accept the 
truth as declared in the Bible, and as disclosed 
in human experience and observation, are ready 
to admit that when Adam of his own choice and 
act cut himself off from God, he and his belong 



184 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to a lost and outcast race. Before the first 
human child was born, however, redemption by a 
Saviour was promised, and from that hour every 
child who has been born into the world has been 
born into a redeemed race. 

Of course every child has had the privilege — if 
it be deemed a privilege — of being lost by his 
deliberate choice of evil ; but his being lost is in 
consequence of his own choice, and not of his 
parents', or his ancestors' choice or sins. This 
seems too obviously in accord with Bible teach- 
ings and sound reason to admit of serious discus- 
sion, and many of the wise and good have 
recognized the truth. Happily this is no ques- 
tion on which denominational differences make a 
separation. Whatever the verbal basis of belief 
in this may be, God-led individuals accept the 
truth, without being misled by verbal mis- 
teachings. 

Infant baptism is not involved in this belief. 
Baptism is a human rite. In itself it does not 
shape the heart or thought of the subject, either 
young or older. Some believe that baptism is 
always to accompany the confession or expres- 
sion of one's personal faith. Others believe that 
baptism of a child is to accompany or indicate 
the dedication of the child to God with the hope 
on the parent's part that the child will later 



- Are Children Bom Condemned or Redeemed? 185 

choose for himself the right. Yet others think 
that baptism belongs only to those who already 
are the loved and accepted children of God. With 
these differences of view the right of baptism 
and its administering are not directly involved 
in the question of the present relation of the 
child to Christ, and of Christ to the child. The 
latter is vastly more than differences of opinion 
as to the right of baptism, and the persons who 
are to receive the rite. 

It was a prominent Baptist pastor in Boston, 
who, as referred to above, told me that I was 
correct in counting my son of a few hours old 
already Christ's, and who quoted another Baptist 
doctor of divinity as saying that John the Baptist 
preached Christ while he was yet in the womb. 
Yet neither of those Baptist divines would have 
deemed either child spoken of as a fit subject for 
baptism. 

An eminent Baptist clergyman, widely known 
as a college president, as a theological professor, 
and as an author, said to the writer that he 
should never dare to be a father, or to bring a 
child into the world, until he was confident that 
he had a right to trust his Saviour for his child 
as well as for himself. He could say confidently 
to his Saviour, " Behold, I and the children whom 
God hath given me." 



186 Our Misunderstood Bible 

I know a number of earnest Baptist pastors 
who have what they call a dedication service, in 
the churches of their charge. In this service, 
little children, infants, are brought by their par- 
ents, and in the presence of the church and con- 
gregation are publicly dedicated to God and to 
his service. And there are Baptist preachers and 
people who approve of, or who have a part 
in, such a service, because they count children as 
loved and redeemed by God in Christ. So it is 
evident that Baptists believe this truth. 

When I first came by independent Bible study 
to this view of children as born into a race re- 
deemed by Christ, I thought it was a novelty, and 
I feared I should be deemed a heretic. But when 
I was with a number of Methodist clergymen, 
including several who afterward became bishops, 
the most prominent of those said that this view 
was what was held by them, as the gracious con- 
dition of childhood, and by many of their 
soundest theologians. While not all Methodists 
held to every dogma that their theology or their 
standards justified, any more than all Presby- 
terians accept every point included in their 
articles of faith, all Methodists have a right to 
believe that children are born into a state of 
grace, redeemed by Christ. And many, very 
many, rejoice in that belief as to their own chil- 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 187 

dren, whom they train from the beginning for 
Christ. 

Methodists are authorized to believe that Jesus 
Christ secured to the race of man a start as re- 
deemed from the curse which came through 
Adam's sin. This their standards show. Yet the 
attempt to employ human words as covering 
spiritual conditions, and to reduce to human 
logic the bounds of the boundless, infinite and 
eternal, lead many of them, as those of other 
denominations are led, into confusion or 
inconsistencies or doubts. In the official Doc- 
trine and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church it is specifically affirmed : " We hold 
that all children, by virtue of the unconditional 
benefits of the atonement, are members of the 
kingdom of God ;" Binney's, " Theological Com- 
pend Improved," a standard work in the denom- 
ination, asserts without qualification : " The guilt 
of original sin is covered by the atonement and 
is not imputed to any of the offspring of Adam 
until its remedy is willfully rejected." 

1 But in all these standard works there are state- 
ments not easily shown consistent with the truth of 
the character of the atonement and the full work of 
the Second Adam as the Redeemer. The work of Dr. 
Wiley, of Drew Theological Seminary, on "Atone- 
ment in Christ." in speaking of the salvation of in- 
fants through Christ, says, "The question is not with- 



188 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Dr. Bushnell's view of childhood in a race re- 
deemed by Christ, and to be trained for God 
from the earliest life, is accepted as the correct 
view of truth by multitudes in the Congrega- 
tional, and Presbyterian, and Episcopal and other 
churches. And this view has been steadily mak- 
ing progress in later years. It is a view that no 
denominational lines confine or exclude. And 
for this there is cause for gratitude among all. 

Dr. Bushnell's earliest statements of this truth 
had been condemned by many as heretical and 
were out of print before I became personally 
interested in the truth as a subject of thought. 
Hence, I first came to the light without the ad- 
out its difficulty. . . . We must confess that the 
usual Arminian treatment of this question is not very 
satisfactory. It often hesitates, vacillates. There is 

a native guilt, but not a guilt as of actual sin 

This indecision is an attempt to hold Calvinism 
and Arminianism beyond the point of real diverg- 
ence, or from a failure to give scientific complete- 
ness to the latter." Convinced as I am that no 
system of man-made doctrine concerning spiritual 
and infinite truth can be definitely correct I make 
no attempt to conform my conviction of God's dis- 
closed truth to any one or any more than one de- 
nominational system of belief. Yet I will not count 
in question the great truth that Jesus Christ does 
more of good to the human race than Adam did or 
could have done of evil. 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 1 89 

vantage of his help in that sphere. Yet I was 
indeed grateful to find that he was so far in 
advance on this matter, as in so many others, 
when God led me out of darkness into light, and 
his statements confirmed my best views of God's 
teachings on the subject, where so many had 
been misled and were misleading others. 

WRONG TO CHILDREN WRONGLD BY FALSE. 
VIEWS OF PARENTS 

While there are still many who cling to tradi- 
tional false views as to the state of childhood in 
Christ, or to whom such false views cling, it was 
formerly far worse. It seems strange that even 
within my own memory there were Bible readers 
and Bible teachers who could accept such views 
as were even then held as to the relation of 
babes to Christ, and of Christ to children. Yet 
there had been steady gain and growth in the 
matter for years and for generations. In view 
of this fact we should have hope and courage 
when we see in how many things progress against 
error is yet to be made by Christian believers. 
Bad as things now are, they used to be much 
worse. 

Even in modern times it has been thought that 
a child was to be saved, or was to become a child 
of God, by understanding God's way of salva- 



190 Our Misunderstood Bible 

tion, or by understanding some approved system 
of doctrine. It has taken centuries to bring men 
to realize that it is Christ who saves, and that 
salvation is not compassed by intellectual belief. 
Yet that error was held and pressed by men of 
God until within two centuries or so. As illus- 
tration of the prevalence of the error among 
those forward in their day, the expressed view 
of so good a man as Dr. Philip Doddridge may 
be cited. He was prominent among clergymen 
more than a century and a half ago who thought 
of children, taught children, and was supposed to 
understand the nature and possibilities of chil- 
dren. 

In a sermon preached in 1736, Dr. Doddridge 
said coolly of children, say, five years old: 
" Without a miracle it cannot be expected that 
much of the Christian scheme should be under- 
stood by these little creatures, in the first dawn- 
ings of reason, though a few evangelical phrases 
may be taught [to them] and sometimes by a 
happy kind may be rightly appliecl [by them]." 
Yet Jesus said of the children in arms that, "to 
such belongeth the kingdom of God," and to such 
he lovingly gave a blessing. Dr. Doddridge was 
a successor of the original disciples. 

More than a century and a quarter after these 
words of Dr. Doddridge, I heard yet stronger 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 191 

and more erroneous words on children spoken by 
an eminent American divine. He was a 
clergyman prominent from Philadelphia to 
Boston. He was addressing an audience 
of parents and Sunday-school teachers in a 
Massachusetts city. He explicitly affirmed 
that it was wrong to teach or encourage 
a child who had given no evidence of a new birth, 
and of having been converted, to use the Lord's 
Prayer. No unconverted, unregenerate child had 
a right to call God Father. Every child was 
born under condemnation, and could never be 
anything else except by a conscious, intelligent 
change of relation to God. This eminent divine 
thought it his duty to press that view as truth. 

It is a known historical fact that one of the 
prominent objections to Sunday-schools in the 
earlier years of that institution was the fear that 
in them children might be led to believe that they 
could call God Father, while yet under condem- 
nation as children of Satan. Even in my day I 
found some parents opposed to having a Sunday- 
school started in their vicinity because they 
deemed it better to have a child grow up a 
conscious enemy of God, obviously needing to 
be wrested from the devil and brought a new 
convert to Christ. 

No wonder that Dr. Bushnell was grieved as 



192 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to the common opinion concerning a child whom 
many would deem safe if he died in infancy, but 
not surely Christ's as he grew up. "If he [as 
child] dies in infancy," says Dr. Bushnell, " God 
may, it is true, find some way, possibly, to save 
him; but if he stays among the living [until 
years of conscious intelligence] he cannot be a 
Christian till he is older." It was this view of 
childhood that Dr. Doddridge seemed to have in 
mind. " The necessity of a great spiritual change 
is upon him, and yet he is wholly incapable of 
the change! What other being has the good 
Lord and Father of the world left in a condition 
so pitiful as this of a human child ? " 

It was one of my own dear children, brought 
up as Christ's from earliest consciousness, who 
came to me grieved because of appeals to her in 
Sunday-school to come to Christ, as though she 
was away from him. 

" Father," she said, " my teacher says she 
wishes I'd come to Jesus. What does she mean ? 
I love Jesus now with all my heart." She was 
accustomed to commune with him daily as lov- 
ingly as with her mother. " How will it be any 
different with me when I've come to Jesus ? " 

Yet that Sunday-school teacher simply was as 
blind as to the truth concerning Christ as many 
have been since Dr. Doddridge's day, and before. 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 193 

Would that the days of darkness had already 
wholly passed away ! 

Children of Christian parents, even in my day, 
were not always permitted to pray by themselves 
as if they had a right to address God as their 
Father, before they were old enough to make a 
confession of renewed life in Christ, and as hav- 
ing left Satan and his work. A lovely Christian 
woman, wife of a clergyman in Connecticut, in 
whose house I was visiting, told me of her ex- 
perience in this line. When she was but a child 
there was a season of special religious interest in 
the community where she was. While older per- 
sons felt the influence of this, she and a little 
girl friend were desirous of having a share in it. 
"But our parents told us we were too young to 
understand it. Accordingly/' she said : 

" With my little girl friend, I went up into an 
upper chamber, one afternoon. We shut the 
door, knowing that if our parents discovered us 
we should be rebuked for trifling with sacred 
matters. And there we prayed to God, lovingly 
and tearfully, and we rejoiced in the privilege. 
Our parents couldn't understand us, but I believe 
God did. And now, looking back on that hour," 
she said, " I believe if ever I have had full com- 
munion with God I had it then." 

Whose view of children is the more correct ? 



194 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Was it Jesus' in his time ? Or was it his disciples' 
of that day, or in the day of Dr. Doddridge, or 
in those of later days up to the last half-century ? 

Even young children themselves often evi- 
dence a better comprehension than their parents 
of the rights to which they are entitled by their 
needs and longings and by Christ's love and 
promises. A little boy in the mission field of 
Amoy, in China, who desired to be counted in 
Christ's fold, was told by some successor of 
those disciples whom Jesus rebuked that he was 
too small to be counted one of Christ's flock, for 
he might fall back, and he replied, with better 
sense than the doubter showed : 

"Jesus has promised to carry the lambs in 
his bosom. As I am only a little boy, it will be 
easier for Jesus to carry me." 

Can it be doubted that Christ welcomes such 
love and trust ? What if all the older ones in 
the fold evidenced as much ? 

In a Christian land a farmer's boy who desired 
to enter the church fold was told that he was 
too young. At this, when his father told him on 
a cold night to fold the farm sheep for the night, 
the boy brought in the sheep, but left a weak 
little lamb out in the cold. On being rebuked 
for this, he said shrewdly : 

" Why, father, I thought the little lamb wasn't 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 195 

old enough to go into the fold with the old 
sheep ; so I left it outside in the cold until it gets 
older/' 

Another little boy, when told he must wait 
until he was older before being taken in, said, 
with a touch of wisdom worthy to be considered 
by older persons : 

" You'd better take me in now; for if I'm left 
outside too long I may not want to come in by 
and by, when you want me to." 

A CHILD-CHRISTIAN NOT ENTITLED TO 
PRIVILEGES OF ADULT BELIEVERS 

A child is born as Christ's, and should be 
counted and trained as such. But a child while 
a child is not a grown adult. A young child is 
not necessarily to have the same food or dress 
or chair or table as a grown person. This is for 
the child's true welfare ; and a child can be 
enabled to see this, and the reasons for it. Even 
a lamb, which is entitled to the shelter of the 
fold, may have a special corner and shelter and 
food as better suited to its needs than among the 
sturdier sheep. Thus with human lambs. Milk 
must be given to babes before they can be fed 
with meat. 

Even the child Jesus could not have the privi- 
lege of the earthly temple until he had reached 



196 Our Misunderstood Bible 

his twelfth year; yet he was counted as wholly 
God's child from birth. Any intelligent child can 
be enabled to understand that he is as truly 
Christ's as are his parents, while he is not old 
enough to share all his parents' privileges. To 
show him the truth is a parent's duty. Yet the 
Christian parent should count his child as truly 
Christ's as is the parent. And here is where is 
the more common and the greater lack. 

HAVING FAITH FOR CHILD A5 FOR SELF 

Marriage was ordained of God in order that 
husband and wife, being made one, might bring 
children into the world as godly seed, born as 
God's and to be trained for God. Until a child 
deliberately deserts God, and chooses to sin, as 
Adam chose to disobey God, the parent is respon- 
sible for the God-given child, to be counted and 
trained as God's. 

Many, very many parents have recognized this 
duty and privilege, and they and their children 
have had reason to rejoice in consequence. An 
illustration of this truth in a godly Scotch mother 
in Massachusetts impressed me years ago. Her 
excellent pastor told me the fact while she was 
still in his parish. Her loved boy, while still in 
her care, and while she still felt responsible for 
him, showed evil traits, and seemed inclined to 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 197 

go astray. But she trusted God for her child as 
ior herself, and she needed and sought God's 
help in the wayward child's training. And this 
was her faith-filled prayer for the boy, as she 
stated it to her pastor: 

" Lord, I am thine, and Johnnie's mine, and we 
are thine; Lord, thy Johnnie's going astray. 
Bring him back, Lord ; bring him back, Lord. 
If Johnnie's lost, in the Great Day his blood will 
I require at thine hand." 

Such sturdy faith and holy boldness in a trust- 
ing parent God loves to find. And God will heed 
and honor the spirit by which it is prompted. 

Training is well in child-care, but faith is bet- 
ter. Earnest prayer, even with the wisest train- 
ing, is no substitute for firm faith, nor can it be 
a sure means of keeping the child in the right 
way. The lack of such confident faith is a lack 
by which the child may suffer, as, on the other 
hand, such faith may be a great blessing to the 
child. This truth is illustrated by a conversation 
on the subject which I had with a valued friend 
in New Jersey. He was the son of an eminent 
clergyman. By his marriage he was in close family 
relation with several clergymen of prominence. 
His home was a choice Christian home, in which 
was the first little child, still very young. As I 
was passing a night there, we talked together of 



198 Our Misunderstood Bible 

this great truth. He spoke of his hope that his 
child might become Christ's loved one. 

" You hope that he may become Christ's. 
Don't you think he is already so ? " I asked. 

" Why, of course I can't think he's already 
Christ's. He's too young for me to think that 
about him." 

" Who does he belong to just now ? " I asked. 
" As I understand it, there are only two forces 
and leaders in the universe, each striving to con- 
trol humanity — God and the Devil. Which do 
you think just now claims your child ? " 

" Well, I know that my child was born 
under sin, as every child is ; but I hope and pray 
that he may be brought to Christ. I pray for 
that." 

" So you do pray for him, even now, while he is 
a child under condemnation ? " 

" Of course I pray for him ; I pray constantly 
and earnestly that he may be brought to Christ. 
I've consecrated him to the Saviour, and I wait 
and hope." 

" But about him, as he was born and as he 
still is, you do not have firm faith that he is, and 
is to be, Christ's ? " 

" Of course I can't be sure of that." 

" Then, as I understand it, my dear friend, if 
you speak out frankly in your prayers, you have 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 199 

to pray in substance somewhat in this way. Ex- 
cuse me for the blunt phrasing, for I speak earn- 
estly and in reverence, but as I understand you 
to state the case, you have to pray this way : 

" ' Dear Lord, I have no right to hope that 
my child, born in sin, is yet your child. But I 
pray that you'll keep your eye on him, and when 
the time comes that he's old enough to become 
yours, you'll take him from the Devil and make 
him your child ; for I don't want that boy to be 
lost' " 

" No, that's not the way I pray now ; but how 
would you have me pray ? " said my friend, the 
young father. 

" As you are God's, and God has given you 
that child, you have a full and unmistakable right 
to go to God with his gift, that child, and to say, 
* Here am I and this child whom thou hast given 
me,' trusting God for your child as you trust him 
for yourself. Going in any other way is not con- 
sistent with your privilege in Christ." 

With this beginning of conversation on the 
subject, we talked until far into the night. Then 
we kneeled together, and that father committed 
himself and his loved child afresh to God, ask- 
ing help to be faithful to that little child of God. 
And from that hour, as he often afterwards said, 
he had new faith and joy as he sought to honor 



200 Our Misunderstood Bible 

God in being faithful to God and to God's dear 
one. God never fails a parent who thus trusts 
him. 

Many a father has thus trusted God for him- 
self and for his children. Even within my own 
sphere of observation I have known parents to 
joy in such trust for their children and their 
grandchildren without any room for doubt and 
wavering. If faith holds firm, God, who has 
promised, never fails the trusting one. But with 
the best training, faith is necessary to make it 
effective for good. God, not good training, is 
our hope for our children. 

A troubled Christian mother sent for me in 
great distress. Her only son had been for a time 
wayward and dissipated. She had prayed for 
him earnestly and constantly. After a while he 
had been brought into the church and had be- 
come an active Christian worker. This gave her 
joy unspeakable. But now he had fallen back 
again. He had seemingly abandoned his faith, 
and had become a reprobate. He had left his 
home, had enlisted in the navy, and had sailed for 
the Far East. The poor mother was almost 
broken-hearted and was well-nigh in despair. 

I asked that mother if she had less reason to 
trust God now than before, as she prayed for the 
boy of her love. She replied that, of course, she 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 201 

Hadn't as much ground for faith now that her son 
seemed a reprobate as while he was an active 
Christian worker. 

" Is the difference in God, or in your boy ? " I 
asked. 

" The difference is in my boy," she said, " and 
that's what's troubling me." 

" On whom did your faith rest, when your 
boy was doing best ? " 

" On God, of course." 

" And has God changed ? " 

" Of course not." 

" Then why is your faith lessened ? " 

" Because of my poor boy's failures." 

"Then you are looking at your boy as the 
ground of your faith, instead of at God." 

" Do you mean to suggest," said the anxious 
mother, " that even now, while my poor boy is in 
his present state, I can look up to God and pray 
for my boy as trustfully as I prayed for him 
while he was active in Christian work ? Do you 
mean to suggest that ? " 

" If your faith rests on God for your God- 
given boy, you can pray to God for your boy just 
as confidently now as before for all that he can 
do for you or your boy. But you must look to 
God and not at your boy for hope while you 
pray." 



202 Our Misunderstood Bible 

" Then I'll do that/' said the anxious mother. 
And she turned again to .God in need and in 
trust. 

Two months or so after that, that mother sent 
for me again. She had received a letter from 
her son that gladdened her heart. It was from 
the vessel he was on in the Chinese seas. It 
was a letter full of penitence and of good pur- 
poses, and of hope and trust. It told a touching 
story. 

About the time when the mother turned anew 
to God, anxiously but in trust, in her New Eng- 
land home — before, of course, he could have had 
any word from her about it — as he was on the 
deck one sunny afternoon in those far-off Chi- 
nese waters, a call seemed to come to him from 
God summoning him to turn from his evil courses 
to his better self, and to God and to his old faith 
in God. 

Overpowered by his feelings, that prodigal son 
went down into the forecastle and prostrated 
himself before God, confessing his sin, and ask- 
ing for pardon and help to do differently. And 
then he wrote as a penitent child to his mother, 
asking her to pray for him, telling of his sorrow 
and of his new purpose of living a new life by 
God's help. That mother gained, in consequence, 
new reason for having faith in God for her son 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 203 

as for herself. Would that every parent had 
learned that lesson as thoroughly as she learned 
it ! That returning prodigal became again active 
in Christ's work; and in that work he was en- 
gaged when God called him away from earth 
with its temptations. Such faith as that 
mother's for child as well as for self God always 
enjoins and honors. 

When a troubled father came to Jesus with a 
demon-possessed child and asked earnestly for 
help, if it were, indeed, possible for Jesus to give 
help, Jesus suggested that the question was not 
whether Jesus had power, but whether the father 
could believe for his child as well as for himself. 
" All things are possible to him that [thus] be- 
lieveth." Then that anxious father cried out 
earnestly, " I believe [for my child and for my- 
self] : help thou mine unbelief/' And the needed 
help was given. (Mark 9: 17-25.) That is God's 
way with parents who trust him for themselves 
and for his children. 

LEARNING FROM CHILDREN AS WELL AS 
TEACHING THEM 

It is the duty of a devoted Christian believer 
to teach little children in Christ's service. But 
it is still more positively a believer's duty to learn 
from little children. Few of us are competent 



204 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to be teachers of children, but all of us, even the 
wisest and most experienced, can learn important 
lessons from little children. On this point we 
are assured by the wisest Teacher who ever 
lived, who understood little children, and who 
knew what was in man and all that men knew. 
Jesus set the little children as an example and 
pattern before his grown-up disciples ; not his 
grown-up disciples as the example and pattern of 
little children. Jesus, pointing to a veritable 
flesh and blood child, said to the wisest of his 
selected and trained disciples, " Verily I say unto 
you, except ye turn, and become as little children, 
ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of 
heaven." (Matt. 18: 3.) "Verily I say unto 
you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter 
therein. ,, (Mark 10: 15.) And this was spoken 
of children in arms. Not much doubt as to what 
was pointed to as the pattern, to be learned a 
lesson from, there. Some of the wisest men of 
God since that day have learned that lesson over 
again, and retaught it to others. 

Dr. Horace Bushnell, who was one of the 
profoundest religious thinkers, while he was one 
of the simplest-hearted and most childlike men of 
God in modern times, said of this truth, and it is 
good to remember having heard him say it: 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 205 

" The true knowledge of God, as in friendship, is 
[assumed by many to be] possible to adults, but 
not to children ; whereas, the real fact is, that 
children are a great deal more capable of it. The 
boy-child Samuel could hear the call [of God] 
when Eli could not. Children may not think the 
gospel experiences as well, but they can have 
them a great deal more easily. Tell the children 
how present God is, how loving he is, how close 
by he is in all good thought, and they will take 
the sense in a great deal better than the adult 
soul, that is gone a-doubting so far and specu- 
lated his mind half away in the false intellectuali- 
ties miscalled reason. Ah ! my friends, of these, 
1 of such as these is the kingdom of heaven ;' so 
Christ says and we make almost nothing of it. 

" These children can make room for more 
gospel than we, and take in all most precious 
thoughts of God more easily. The very highest 
and most spiritual things are a great deal closer 
to them than to us. Let us not wonder, and not 
be offended, if they break out in hosannas on 
just looking into the face of Jesus, when the 
great multitude of priests and apostles are dumb 
along the road, as the ass on w T hich he rides." 

Dr. Charles Wadsworth, of Philadelphia and 
San Francisco, who was a native of the same 
town in Litchfield County, in Connecticut, as 



206 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Horace Bushnell and Henry Ward Beecher, says 
with like forcefulness : " The intellectual opin- 
ions, or judgments, little children form of high 
theological mysteries are nearer to the realities, 
and so truer, than the metaphysical elaborations 
of the ambitious rabbis of theology. 

" For example, I come to one of these men of 
academic condition, and I ask, ' What is God ? ' 
and he answers, ' God is a self-existent, inde- 
pendent, absolute, infinite spirit; without emo- 
tions for emotion implies succession; without 
dwelling-place, for pure spirit has no relations to 
position ; without, indeed, any resemblances or 
analogies by which we can figure or conceive of 
him. ' Now, this may be all very profound and 
philosophic, but, alas, not very comforting. 

" God is what ? An absolute and infinite 
Spirit ! Ah, me ! That mysterious and awful 
word spirit ! No marvel that the disciples on 
Tiberias were troubled, as through the wild night 
comes a wondrous form walking on the billows, 
and they thought it was a spirit. And so when 
I look forth on the immensities of the universe, 
struggling to behold the invisible and to com- 
pass the incomprehensible, and catching glimpses, 
as it were, of an absolute, infinite spirit, and am 
told that it is God, then I startle and stand back 
in the wild night as the mighty seas roar around 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 207 

me, as from the forthcoming of some awful and 
incomprehensible phantom. 

" But sick of this vain searching to find out 
God unto perfection, I turn from the school of 
the rabbis and find me a little child in its unam- 
bitious and earnest instincts, and I say again, 
' What is God ? ' and the child answers, ' God 
is my Heavenly Father.' And I know better 
now, for I know as much as I can know now. 
God the Spirit is my Father in Heaven. " 

Dr. J. C. Ryle, of England, who was the first 
Bishop of Liverpool, says in the same line : 
" I suspect we have no idea how much a little 
child can take in of the length and breadth of 
the glorious gospel. . . . There are wonderful 
examples of what a child can attain to even at 
three years old." 

And Charles H. Spurgeon, the famous London 
preacher, adds : " In fact, children are capable 
of understanding some things in early life which 
we hardly understand afterward. Children have 
eminently a simplicity of faith. Simplicity is akin 
to the highest knowledge ; indeed, we know not 
that there is much distinction between the sim- 
plicity of a child and the genius of the profound- 
est mind." 

Who of us, who has had much to do with little 
children, has not had light thrown on the great- 



208 Our Misunderstood Bible 

est truths of revelation and of spiritual knowl- 
edge by the keen insight and the simple faith of 
the little ones ! A learned divine told an 
acquaintance of mine that when he, as a theolo- 
gian and a preacher, was puzzled as to the mean- 
ing of a Bible passage, and confused with its 
various renderings by learned commentators, he 
was accustomed to read that Bible passage over 
to his little grandchild, and ask her what it meant, 
or how she understood it. Her direct and faith- 
filled answer would, in many a case, open up to 
him the glorious truth, as he had not perceived 
it before. Was Jesus mistaken about children 
as the best teachers for his disciples ? 

A little boy whom I knew, while he was scarce 
three years old, was invited into a neighbor's to 
the mid-day meal. As he sat down with his hosts 
at their table, he observed that they did not ask 
a blessing on the meal. When they pressed him 
to take food, he said quietly, " I always ask a 
blessing before I eat." Then, seeing that no one 
seemed ready to perform that office, he said, 
"I'll do it myself." And bowing his head, he 
reverently and simply thanked God for the food 
and asked his blessing on it. He used no set 
form of words, but as if in full appreciation 
of the meaning of his act, he spoke as a 
grateful child to his Father. He thought this no 



Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 209 

unusual act, but his host felt the lesson and told 
his neighbors of the lesson the little child had 
taught. How often in some such way a little 
child shall lead those who should be led ! 

A TRUTH TO BE RLMLMBLRLD 

Every child of man, from the first child, 
whether of heathen or of Christian parents, has 
been born into a redeemed race through the sec- 
ond Adam, as the race came under condemna- 
tion in the first Adam. (Rom. 5 : 15 ; 1 Cor, 15 : 
22, 45.) With the weakness and evil bent of the 
outer man by inheritance, a child uncared for is 
likely to sin of himself as Adam sinned. But if 
trustful redeemed parents include their God-given 
children v:ith themselves in their prayers and 
service and their faith, God will never desert 
or fail either parent or child. And the nexus of 
such grace is the parent's faith. Therefore, let 
parents thank God and trust. God will never 
desert or fail them so long as God is God. 



XXII 
BIBLE REST NOT INACTION 

A favorite idea of rest is that of quitting work, 
and of having nothing to do but to rest. But a 
better idea of rest is that of having strength and 
ability to work, and to keep on working without 
breaking down or having a hard time of it. The 
popular view of rest from work is very different 
from the Bible view of rest in work; but these 
two views of rest are commonly and lamentably 
confounded. 

For example, the invitation of Jesus, " Come 
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest, " is frequently quoted as 
though it read, " Come unto me, all ye that are 
weary, and I will give you rest" (Matt, n: 
28-30). Tired souls and tired bodies are tak- 
ing comfort in the thought that they have done 
quite as much work as they ought to, and that 
it is time for them to have a vacation or an out- 
ing. Therefore they sing languidly, but in hope : 

" There is rest for the weary, 
There is rest for me." 

But while vacations and outings have their 
place in life, the rest to which Jesus invites hard 
210 



Bible Rest Not Inaction 211 

workers is not rest from work, but rest in work. 
" Take my yoke upon you, " he says, " and learn 
of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart : and ye 
shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt, n: 
29.) Putting your neck into a yoke is not an 
outing, but an inning. Pulling away more vigor- 
ously at a heavy load is not a vacation, but it is 
the sort of rest that Jesus summons to in his 
service. 

The more popular idea of this invitation of 
Jesus is indicated in the familiar words : 

" I heard the voice of Jesus say, 
'Come unto me and rest; 
Lay down, thou weary one, lay down 
Thy head upon my breast/ " 

But the Gospel invitation says nothing about 
laying down the head on the Saviour's breast ; on 
the contrary, it invites to the putting of the head 
through the Saviour's yoke. The invitation is 
not to lazy swinging in a spiritual hammock, or 
to tired lounging in a spiritual easy-chair, it is 
to a vigorous tugging under a spiritual yoke- 
beam ; and there is all the difference in the world 
between these two. If, indeed, there be any 
invitation in the Gospel pages to these more 
attractive indulgences it is not found here. Over 
the very entrance to this house of refreshing 



212 Our Misunderstood Bible 

there is inscribed a warning, like that which we 
see at the doorway of many a busy shop or 
factory, " No Admittance except for Workmen. " 

Yet even so exact a thinker and so careful a 
writer as Professor Henry Drummond, in his de- 
lightful and widely popular treatise entitled "Pax 
Vobiscum," seriously makes the mistake of sup- 
posing that the invitation of Jesus is to the tired 
and weary instead of to the overburdened yet 
vigorous and determined hard worker. He even 
says that it is a " direct appeal for all to come to 
Him who had not made much of life, who 
were weary and heavy laden. " And many a 
layman and minister has made the same mistake 
as Professor Drummond. 

There are two Greek words alike translated 
" rest " in the New Testament, one of which 
means a " let up " of toil, and the other a " let 
down " from toil. The word here translated 
" rest " signifies a let up of labor, or an uplift of 
it, in order to its better prosecution. The other 
word indicates a let down or cessation of labor. 
Here, therefore, the idea would seem to be of a 
rest that is a refreshing, or of a relief in labor, 
rather than of a rest that is a relief from labor. 
Indeed, the Douay version of the Bible, in use 
by Roman Catholics, better translates this invita- 
tion, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 



Bible Rest Not Inaction 213 

burdened, and I will refresh you ; " and the Eng- 
lish Church, as well as the American, Prayer- 
Book, also gives " refresh " for " rest/' 

It is a refreshing of the soul through a 
change in the spirit and methods of work, and 
not through a cessation and an abandonment of 
toil, that our Lord indicates as the rest which he 
proffers to the hard worker in his service. When 
Jesus found a helpless cripple by the Pool of 
Bethesda (John 5: 1-17) bowed down under 
the weight of his burden of disease, he called him 
to rest by saying, " Arise, and take up thy bed, 
and walk" (John 5: 8), — as if he would say, 
" You have worked long enough doing nothing ; 
now find refreshing in pleasurable labor. Up, 
and carry the bed on which you have been car- 
ried all these years." And that was better for 
that poor cripple than a whole summer of 
hammock-swinging in the mountains or by the 
seashore would have been. This act of healing 
was performed on the sabbath day, and the Jews 
complained of Jesus because he told the man to 
rest working instead of to rest doing nothing. 
But Jesus said that his Father w r orks on while 
resting, and that the truest pattern of rest, for 
God or for man, is in fitting and timely work. 

Our Lord says to those who are well-nigh 
worked to death in the field of their daily labor, 



214 Our Misunderstood Bible 

and who are staggering under an inevitable bur- 
den that threatens to crush them to the earth : 
" Come unto me, and I will refresh you. Cease 
to count that burden yours. Let it be mine. Put 
your neck through the bow of my yoke. Fit 
your shoulders to my yokebeam. Fasten your 
burden to that. I will share it with you. Look 
at me, and see how I pull a load, uncomplainingly 
and in submissive determination. Follow my 
example ; imitate my spirit as a worker ; and you 
shall have such refreshing as will give you new 
life and new strength ; for to be in my service, 
wearing my yoke, is to find hard work easy and 
a heavy load light. " 

In proportion as a yoke fits and suits the 
wearer, the burden drawn by it seems light ; and 
the spirit in which one wears the yoke determines 
the ease with which it sets on him. Many a 
bright lad who would think his a hard yoke if 
he were called to sit at the front window of his 
father's house for three hours of a summer's day, 
to keep tally of the loads of coal being put into 
the home cellar, would count it an easy yoke 
that fastened him for the same length of time to 
the " bleaching boards " of the athletic grounds, 
under a scorching sun in June, or in a cold rain 
in November, checking the score in a sharply, 
contested game between rival universities. 



Bible Rest Not Inaction 215 

Young people and older ones seem to find re- 
freshing, hour after hour, in golf links and on 
bicycles, at billiards or bowling, in whist or 
progressive eucher, at theaters or dances, when 
they would grow weary and exhausted in one- 
quarter of the time in hospital visiting, in Sun- 
day-school teaching, in prayer-meeting attend- 
ance, or even in study or reading. Hard work' 
that is called pleasure is easy work. Easy work 
that is counted dry duty is hard work. 

Love gives rest in work, as better than rest 
from work. When Jacob found that he could 
win his loved Rachel by seven years of added toil 
for her hard-dealing father, " Jacob served seven 
years for Rachel ; and they seemed unto him but 
a few days, for the love he had to her." (Gen. 
29: 20.) Love for his country gives a soldier 
rest in his most toilsome service for that coun- 
try. Abounding love for any person or object 
gives rest in needed toil for that object or person. 
Love for Christ gives refreshing continually to 
those who labor and are heavy laden in his serv- 
ice. In the pursuit of pleasure, of wealth, or of 
fame, " even the youths shall faint and be weary, 
and the young men shall utterly fall : but they 
that wait on Jehovah shall renew their 
strength ; they shall mount up with wings as 
eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they 



216 Our Misunderstood Bible 

shall walk, and not faint " (Isaiah 40: 30, 31) ; 
they shall rest in labor, rather than rest from 
labor. 



XXIII 

BUSY MARTHAS NEVER GOOD 
HOUSEKEEPERS 

Worry is never a help in any proper occupation 
of man or woman. It is a hindrance in any and 
every line of practical service. Peculiarly is it 
true that in housekeeping, where woman is at her 
best, and where her power is greatest for good to 
all those who are within the sacred circle of home 
influence as permanent members or occasional 
visitors, worry and fretting and trouble of mind 
are only disturbing elements, tending to the 
lessening of the matron's power, and to the dis- 
comfort of all who are in any way dependent on 
her for comfort or supply. On the contrary, 
quietness of mind, restfulness of spirit, and com- 
posure of manner, are elements of power in a 
housekeeper, and of good to all who are affected 
by her efforts or labors. 

This would seem to be an indisputable truth, 
yet it is not universally accepted, nor is it even 
believed by all who seriously consider the ques- 
tion as a question. A proof of this assertion is 
found in the Bible narrative of the two kinds of 

217 



218 Our Misunderstood Bible 

women, — the restless, worrying one, and the 
placid, trustful one : Martha and Mary in the 
home in Bethany, — and in the ordinary comments 
on those two by the average reader, and even by 
many a preacher or commentator. This makes 
the whole subject one worthy of careful con- 
sideration by all who would know God's will 
for good women as the best part of God's crea- 
tion, and also for men, who are lower down on 
the scale. Many a Bible reader actually seems to 
be of the opinion that the worrying woman was 
the better housekeeper of these two. 

That Bethany home was one of the homes of 
Jesus, — a home of sacred friendship, a home 
where Jesus was always welcome, a home in con- 
nection with which we know more of the tenderer 
side of his human and social nature than we learn 
from any other portion of his life story. On one 
occasion, when Jesus came to that home needing 
human sympathy, both sisters wanted to do him 
honor. Mary recognized him as Master and 
Teacher, as something more than an ordinary 
guest, and she promptly took her place at his 
feet, — the Oriental position of an appreciative 
pupil, — ready to hear and heed his words. 
Martha, like the ordinary Oriental hostess, set 
herself to prepare food for her guest. Without 
stopping to inquire what was his special need, 



Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 219 

she began to work and to worry over her plans 
of accustomed hospitable provision. 

It was at this point that the unlovely and un- 
helpful side of Martha showed itself, and called 
out a rebuke from Jesus. Because of that cen- 
sure of Jesus it is our duty to recognize the reason 
for it. To Martha, the restful inaction of Mary 
at the feet of Jesus was inexcusable. In the free- 
dom and familiarity of friendship, but none the 
less inexcusable on that account, Martha bustled 
into the presence of Jesus, and rudely rebuked 
him, as it were, for seeming to aid and approve 
her sister's lack of helpfulness. 

" Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did 
leave me to serve alone? bid her therefore that 
she help me " (Luke 10: 40). 

Now, apart from any question of the relative 
qualities of the two sisters, will any one say that 
this act of Martha's was courteous and consider- 
ate toward her guest? Would it be polite or 
kindly or proper toward a guest in your house, 
whom you were entertaining, or preparing to en- 
tertain, to burst in upon him when he was talking 
with another member of the family, and to sug- 
gest to him bluntly that he ought to know better 
than to keep away from her proper work in the 
household a needed member of the family with 
whom he was conversing? Can a woman be 



220 Our Misunderstood Bible 

called a good housekeeper who would conduct 
herself in this way as a hostess ? How did Jesus 
seem to look at this ? He never made a mistake 
on such a point or on any other. What did he 
say? 

" The Lord answered [Martha] and said unto 
her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and 
troubled about many things; but one thing is 
needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, 
which shall not be taken away from her" (Luke 
10: 41, 42). 

In these words Jesus evidently reproved Mar- 
tha and approved Mary for their relative courses 
of action in this matter. However we may won- 
der that he did so, we shall have to admit that 
this was his course. And if we examine yet 
more closely, we shall see that his words were 
eminently consistent with his other teachings. 
To be " cumbered," as Jesus said Martha was, 
is, as the Greek word means, to " be distracted," 
to be drawn this way and that, instead of being 
intent on the one thing to be done. Even in 
getting a dinner, or in doing anything else, Mar- 
tha, in the exercise of this trait, could not give 
her whole attention to the one thing she had to 
do. In this Martha lacked the main essential 
of a good housekeeper — the ability to give her 
undivided attention to the one thing she had to 



Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 221 

do for the time being. This is clearly implied 
or included in the rebuke of Jesus. Again, to be 
" anxious," as the Revision reads, or to be " care- 
ful," as the old version gave it, and " troubled " 
about many things, is to be perplexed and in a 
tumult as to pressing duty. That, surely, was 
not right in Martha, as Jesus plainly pointed out 
her error. We are distinctly told not to be anx- 
ious or to be troubled at any time, and the house- 
keeper or the business man who fails at this point 
fails in a vital matter. 

In the question brought before Jesus by Mar- 
tha, as to her course in comparison with Mary, 
he does not hesitate to render an explicit de- 
cision. He rebukes Martha's course in every 
particular that he touches on without saying a 
word of approval of her. He unqualifiedly com- 
mends Mary's course without a word of censure 
for her. Is not this finally conclusive as to the 
point at issue? One would think so. 

But elsewhere it is also said that " Jesus loved 
Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus " (John 
ii : 5). So he did, but that does not in itself 
imply that he commends in all things the course 
of any one of the three. It is also said that 
Jesus loved the young man who lacked the one 
thing needful according to the testimony of Jesus. 
Jesus loved Martha, not because she was a good 



222 Our Misunderstood Bible 

housekeeper, nor yet because she failed of being 
so, but because he is so loving that he loves even 
those who lack much. 

The specific faults of worrying and being drawn 
away from the one duty of the hour, and of being 
over anxious, that Jesus pointed out in Martha, 
are as clearly reprehended and warned against 
in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere as 
are theft and murder; yet, strange to say, Mar- 
tha is often commended by confessing Christians, 
not in spite of her faults, but as if those very 
faults were admirable. Comfort-loving husbands 
sometimes think of Mary as a pious do-nothing, 
who might be fitted for a high place in the future 
life, but who was not fitted for this life. Martha, 
on the other hand, is considered by them as the 
sort of practical housekeeper who would have 
the dinner ready on time, and the rooms swept, 
and the beds made. In their opinion, she is the 
kind of housekeeper for the average home. Some 
active and efficient wives and housekeepers are 
even willing to speak of themselves frankly as 
" busy Marthas," when they would never want to 
be called " lively Sapphiras." This they do, not 
by way of admitting their unworthiness and in- 
competence, but in the thought that they are 
claiming a share of real merit. 

Even scholarly Christian commentators, who 



Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 223 

are supposed to have examined the original text, 
incline to suggest that there is something to be 
said on both sides of the question, although Jesus 
seems to have considered but one side as worthy 
of his approval. Thus one of these commenta- 
tors says: " The one [sister] represents the con- 
templative, the other the active, style of the 
Christian character. A church full of Marys 
would be as great an evil as a church full of Mar- 
thas. Both are wanted, each to be the comple- 
ment of the other." 

Only think of it ! A church full of the sort of 
persons whose ways Jesus commended would be 
as great an evil as a church full of those persons 
who possess the characteristics which Jesus dis- 
approved ! Away with such misconceptions and 
perversions of the texts as these ! Away with all 
such comments on the plain teachings of Scrip- 
ture even by the most distinguished of mis- 
guided commentators ! 

Martha was wrong in being anxiously worried 
over many things that might be done, instead of 
attending faithfully to her single duty of the hour. 
This Jesus recognized, and therefore he reproved 
her. Mary was right in doing the one thing that 
was to be done, when her divine Master and 
guest wanted just that duty done, and for this 
Jesus commended her. 



224 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Mary had the qualities that would make a bet- 
ter housekeeper than was Martha. She could do 
more work and do it better, in an hour or in a 
day, than could Martha; and she would make 
less fuss over it, and this would be less annoying 
to herself, to her family, and to her guests. We 
have every reason to suppose that this was evi- 
denced in her everyday practice. 

We have no authority for supposing that Mar- 
tha was the only one of the sisters to attend to 
the housekeeping in the Bethany home, and that 
Mary left it all to her to do. The very fact that 
Martha came to Jesus with her complaint that 
Mary was failing to help on that particular occa- 
sion indicates that Martha was accustomed to 
expect Mary's help at ordinary times. Jesus, as 
a loving guest, had certainly a right to the pres- 
ence and listening ear of at least one of the sis- 
ters. Martha, when it was her turn in the 
kitchen, evidently wanted both Jesus and Mary 
to be at her service; for that is the way with 
fidgety and fussy women when they have their 
work to attend to. 

If it had been Mary's turn in the kitchen, that 
day, she would have attended to her one duty 
there, and have been glad to have Martha, mean- 
time, filling her place, as a good listener, at the 
feet of Jesus. Mary would not then have left 



Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 225 

the kitchen in order to complain of Martha, and 
to make her guest uncomfortable. True hospi- 
tality shows itself in other ways toward a guest 
than in getting a dinner at the cost of discomfort 
to all in the house, guests included. 

The story of the sisters in Bethany shows us 
how a true woman is to do a true woman's work, 
whatever that work may be, by attending to it at 
the proper time, and not seeming to be worried 
over it, or about anything else. It shows us ? 
moreover, how not to be efficient as a house- 
keeper through worrying and fretting. 

Here is also a lesson for men in their sphere, 
as well as for women in theirs. " A double- 
minded man [or a man cumbered with a divided 
purpose] unstable [and therefore ineffective] 
in all his ways " (Jas. 1 : 8). Man or woman is 
really efficient in choosing and in attending to 
the one thing needful for the hour. The Bible 
record is clear on that point, whatever preachers 
or commentators, or thoughtless business men, 
or inefficient housewives, may think or say on 
the subject. 



XXIV 

CLERGYMEN NOT THE CHIEF 
PREACHERS * 

It is a very common idea that only an ordained 
or regularly commissioned preacher should 
preach ; that preachers are necessarily a class by 
themselves; that ordinary laymen, or private 
church members, would be infringing on the 
duties of a special and privileged class or order 
of men if they presumed to preach. Yet this 
idea is not found expressed in the Bible, and it 
gains no countenance from the teachings of that 
book. 

Our English word " preach " is used as the 
equivalent of at least two Hebrew words and five 
Greek words, with their varying meanings. It 
includes the call, or warning, of a herald; the 
telling of good tidings ; and the discoursing fully 
and at length concerning a special theme. In 
its first two meanings, of heralding and evangel- 
izing, it obviously is a duty for all who know of 
a danger or of a means of good to make it known 
to others. In the third meaning, of extended 
and thorough discourse, it is rather teaching than 

226 



Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 227 

preaching that is meant ; it is a means of instruct- 
ing, instead of meie inviting or warning. In no 
one of the three senses is preaching limited by 
the Bible to ordained or appointed ministers or 
clergymen ; yet here is where a misunderstanding 
of Bible teachings is common and widespread. 

What would be thought of a man who dis- 
covered a fire breaking out in a neighbor's house 
at midnight, and who refused to give an alarm 
because he was not a regular policeman or an 
authorized watchman? That would be acting 
on the idea that prompts a man to refrain from 
heralding the good news of salvation to sinners 
because he is not an ordained clergyman. 

The question of the importance of an ordained 
and educated ministry is quite by itself. A cler- 
gyman's work includes duties of administration, 
officiating at services of various kinds, leading in 
public worship, the administering of sacraments, 
instructing those who are under his care, and 
speaking words of invitation and warning to all 
whom he can reach. But this last duty he shares 
with all the followers of his Master; it is in no 
sense an exclusive prerogative of his office or 
class. 

An old clergyman of the stricter Covenanters, 
rigid though he was in all ecclesiastical matters, 
said on this point, " Every man has a natural right 



228 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to preach." Then he proceeded to show that 
the public setting apart of a man as a clergyman 
includes a great deal more than telling him that 
he has the right to preach, as all men have. Of 
course, a minister has as good a right to preach 
as any other man, even though preaching is not a 
distinctively ministerial act. As Dr. Richard S. 
Storrs said, " It is the first duty of a minister to 
be a good layman ; " but that does not deprive 
the layman of his duty to do the same as a min- 
ister in this particular. 

A minister's chief duty is not that of preach- 
ing the gospel in his pulpit to the unevangelized, 
and urging them to come into the church fold. 
That work his people ought to be doing at all 
times, although he can have his part with them 
in this also. When newcomers are brought 
under his pastoral care, it is for him to instruct 
and train them faithfully. There is the great 
need of a wise and careful master workman. 

As Mr. Moody says, " It is better to set ten 
men at work than to do the work of ten men." 
A minister's sphere would be enlarged, and his 
power increased, if all his people were preachers, 
at work in season and out of season, warning 
and entreating souls, and bringing new disciples 
under the pastor's care for instruction and train- 
ing. This would not be doing the pastor's work 



Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 229 

for him, but it would be giving him more work 
to do, and better work, continually. 

Whatever preaching the minister can do in the 
line of heralding invitations and warnings, and 
proclaiming the good news of salvation, at spe- 
cial services in his church or outside of it, is 
indeed important as his part of a disciple's mis- 
sion. "As ye go, preach" (Matt. 10: 7) is a 
command to the ministers as to all other disci- 
ples ; and, whatever is their distinctive ministerial 
work, they should not neglect this important 
duty. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive 
ministerial function. A minister shares the 
right to it with all the believers. 

Preaching is no more the principal mission or 
right of a clergyman than is fighting the pre- 
rogative of a colonel of a regiment in war time. 
A colonel's chief duty is to oversee and direct 
his soldiers, and to secure their action most ad- 
vantageously, whether he takes part personally 
in the fighting or not. Urging others to enlist, 
and bringing recruits to the commander for 
training and leading, is a duty that every private 
soldier can have a part in. And when recruits 
are fairly mustered in, they are to take their 
full share, in recruiting and fighting, instead of 
merely watching the officers do it all. As it is 
in the army of a temporal government, so it 



230 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ought to be in the Lord's army. It was said 
of the Waldenses, five centuries ago, "He who 
has been a disciple for seven days looks out 
some one whom he may teach in his turn, so that 
there is a continual increase [of them]." Seven 
days is quite long enough for any disciple of 
Christ to be in his fold, before he begins to 
preach about Christ. 

So general, however, is the popular error that 
preaching from a pulpit by an ordained or spe- 
cially appointed minister is alone proper preach- 
ing, that the Great Commission which is our 
Lord's command to his disciples for evangeliz- 
ing, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16: 15), 
seems to be generally understood as though it 
read, " Come ye from all the world, and hear 
the gospel preached." In this view of the Great 
Commission, the responsibility is practically sup- 
posed to rest on the unevangelized to come to 
the church in order to be preached to, instead 
of on the preacher to look up the unevangelized, 
wherever they are, and preach to them. Indeed, 
Bishop Huntington has suggested that by their 
system of pew-rents many churches seem to say 
to the unevangelized, " Come to our church 
regularly, and pay twenty-five cents a week for 
your seat, and our preacher will try to convert 



Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 231 

you." Outsiders are certainly liable to think 
that this is the way that the churches look at 
the matter. 

It would seem, indeed, as if many were so de- 
sirous of conforming strictly to the inspired 
declaration that it is God's plan and " good 
pleasure through the foolishness of the preach- 
ing [or the simple heralding of the truth] to 
save them that believe" (i Cor. i: 21) it, that 
they are possessed with the idea that there 
ought to be something essentially foolish in the 
manner of preaching, or in the limitation of 
warnings and invitations to a special class in a 
particular place. But the Bible does not justify 
this idea, or say anything of this nature. 

Of course, all who would join in the public 
worship of God ought to be church attendants. 
Of course, all who would have the public minis- 
trations of the church and its clergymen should 
seek them there. Of course, all who are desir- 
ous to know the truth, and are inquirers con- 
cerning the way to God, ought to go to the min- 
ister, if the minister does not come to them. Of 
course, all who wish to be instructed and trained 
in spiritual knowledge have their place in the 
church where such knowledge is imparted. But 
the having a building where all this can be found 
by those who desire it, is not by any means the 



232 Our Misunderstood Bible 

first duty, or the chief one, of a church and its 
minister; nor is the man who leads the services 
there the one to do the most of the gospel 
preaching that ought to be done by that church. 
The beginning of the Christian Church shows 
who preached effectively at the start, and how 
the preaching was done. John the Baptist told 
Andrew and John about Jesus. Andrew went 
and told Peter. John went and told James. 
Philip told Nathanael. This was not public 
preaching by an ordained clergyman in an audi- 
torium. It was man-to-man preaching by the 
simple telling of good news, and the inviting to 
share in its benefits. The early believers went 
everywhere preaching, or proclaiming the good 
news. Philip left a crowd of listeners at Samaria 
to find one man in a chariot and tell him about 
Jesus (Acts 8: 26-40), and in that way the gos- 
pel was carried into the " Dark Continent." Thus 
the gospel has been preached most effectively 
all the way along to the present day. Mr. 
Beecher expressed a great truth when he said, 
as the result of his personal experience and ob- 
servation : " The longer I live, the more I realize 
that the best sermons are those where one man 
is the minister and one man is the congregation ; 
where the preaching is face to face and eye to 
eye ; where there is no doubt as to who is meant 



Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 233 

by the words, ' Thou art the man.' " Whoever 
can preach thus ought to preach. 

Whoever knows of danger to his fellows, and 
warns them of it, is a preacher. Whoever is 
possessed of good news, and lets it be known, 
is a preacher. He does not need to be a clergy- 
man, or to stand in a pulpit. Wherever he is 
face to face with a needy soul he ought to 
preach; he fails of his duty if he then neglects 
his opportunity to heed the Great Commission. 
Whether it be a teacher with his pupil, a mer- 
chant with his clerk, a mistress with her servant^ 
a neighbor with a neighbor, whoever it be who 
gives a warning or an invitation from God which 
is explicit, direct, and personal, or who puts a 
straight question to another as to an interest in 
Christ's salvation, there is a preacher, and there 
is preaching. As Richard Baxter says, so may 
any one of us say, " I hope there is none so silly 
as to think this conference is not preaching. 
What, doth the number we speak to make it 
preaching? Or doth interlocution make it none? 
Surely a man may as truly preach to one as to a 
thousand." 

Every one of us has a mission to be a preacher. 
Every one of us ought to preach. If all of us 
were preaching as we have opportunity, how 
greatly the power of the church would be in- 



234 Our Misunderstood Bible 

creased, and how much of good might come to 
the needy! The misunderstanding of the scope 
and duty of preaching, and of the call to every 
believer to preach, is one of the chief causes of 
neglected duty and of barren results in this 
sphere. 



XXV 
CHASTISEMENT NOT PUNISHMENT* 

Many seem to think that chastisement and 
punishment are practically identical. A picture, 
or reading book wood-cut, familiar to many now 
living, represented an irate farmer driving out 
of his orchard, or punishing in it, a bad boy, who 
had been caught stealing apples. The expression 
on the old man's face was anything but a loving 
or benevolent one, as he was swinging in his 
uplifted hand a switch, or bunch of rods, while 
the frightened boy was held in his firm grasp, 
and was caused to feel the old man's vengeance. 
Underneath this picture was the legend that told 
of " an angry farmer chastising a rude boy who 
was purloining apples from his orchard. " That 
picture represented the ordinary view of chas- 
tisement as a punitive or retributive measure in 
the interests of stern justice. 

Most readers would have the same idea of 
chastisement as they read in the Bible of young 
Rehoboam — the son and successor of Solomon — 

*An incidental reference has been made to this truth 
in an earlier chapter; but it deserves fuller and sep- 
arate treatment. 

235 



236 Our Misunderstood Bible 

saying to the representatives of the people over 
whom he was to rule, " My father chastised you 
with whips, but I will chastise you with scor- 
pions " (i Kings 12 : 14). Those certainly do not 
seem to be words of love, prompted by a desire 
for the subjects' good. Hence chastisement, in 
both the Bible and other books, seems to convey 
the idea of vindictiveness and retribution, rather 
than a method of promoting the welfare of the 
persons under treatment. 

Yet again we read words in the Bible that 
seem to convey a very different idea. Thus : 

"My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the 

Lord, 
Nor faint when thou art reproved of him; 
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, 
And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth " (Heb. 
12: 5, 6). 

"What son is there whom his father chasten- 
eth not?" (Heb. 12: 7). "If ye are without 
chastening, whereof all have been made partak- 
ers, then are ye bastards, and not sons " (Heb. 
12: 8). And thus in many another place in the 
Old Testament and the New. It is true that the 
English word " chasten," as used in the Bible 
and outside of it, has a gentler and a softer 
sound than " chastise," and we are not accus- 
tomed to connect the idea of harshness, or retri- 



Chastisement Not Punishment 237 

bution, or vindictiveness, with chastening, as we 
ordinarily do with chastising. Yet in the orig- 
inal Hebrew and Greek the words " chasten " 
and " chastise " are practically the same, and the 
difference in our way of looking at them grows 
out of our way of thinking about them. It is 
what Professor Riddle calls a matter of eisen- 
gesis, rather than exegesis, — what we read into 
the words, rather than what we read out of 
them. 

"Blessed is the man whom thou chasteneth, O 
Jehovah, 
And teachest out of thy law/' 

and where, in i Kings 12: 14, Rehoboam said 
to the people, " My father chastised you with 
whips, but I will chasten you with scorpions/' 
the Hebrew verb is the same in every respect 
that is translated in one case " chasten " and in 
the other " chastise." So it is not easy to show 
that chastise is of itself a harsher word than 
chasten. 

To " chasten " and to " chastise " a child by 
a parent, or a person by a ruler, is primarily to 
train, to teach, to discipline, to instruct; the 
meaning to " punish " seems to be, in the opinion 
of eminent etymologists and lexicographers, a 
secondary meaning, growing out of human cus- 



238 Our Misunderstood Bible 

toms and practices. The primary meaning of 
the word looks to the future ; the secondary and 
acquired meaning of it looks to the past. To 
train or to teach has in mind the future good 
of the person ; to punish has in mind the per- 
son's past. The one is anticipatory in its pur- 
pose; the other is retributory, and in a sense 
vindictive. 

Whether human authority, parental or judi- 
cial, has any right, at any time, to be retaliatory 
or vindictive, is a question in many minds. The 
idea conveyed in the words of God, " Vengeance 
belongeth unto me ; I will recompense, saith the 
Lord" (Heb. 12: 19) means more in the minds 
of some than of others. It is noteworthy, in 
this connection, that in the few instances in the 
Bible where chastise seems to mean retributive 
or in any sense vindictive, the reference is to 
God's action, not to man's. When Rehoboam 
(1 Kings 12: 14) tells the people of Israel, "I 
will chastise you with scorpions," he obviously 
is not threatening to punish them for acts which 
they had committed, for they have not been 
under him until now. He is speaking of the 
future and of his purpose of instructing or train- 
ing them in the way, or course, in which he 
would have them go. But when it is said (Lev. 
26: 28) "I will chastise you seven times for 



Chastisement Not Punishment 239 

your sins," it is God, not man, who claims the 
right of retaliatory punishment. 

How many misguided and wrong-doing par- 
ents have perverted the words of sacred writ, 
and have severely, or inhumanly, punished their 
children because of some misdeed, or failure, 
of theirs, without a thought or purpose of love 
to the child, or of his right training for the fu- 
ture ! The bitter chastisement has been in view 
of what has been, rather than in view of what 
should be. It is, indeed, often well to look at a 
child's failures or misdeeds in the past in order 
to know what is the child's danger or need in 
the future. But in this case, as in every other, 
an act of wise and kind chastening or chastising 
is to be performed as a loving help to the train- 
ing and future good of the child, not as a recom- 
pensing punishment of what has been done. 

A much misunderstood, and therefore often 
misquoted, proverb (Prov. 13: 24) reads: 

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son; 
But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. " 

This proverb has been misused as a supposed 
justification of using a switch or strap for the 
thrashing or flogging a child because of his 
misdeeds. Yet a careful examination of the 
words as they stand should show the ordinary 
reader how far from the truth is such an idea. 



240 Our Misunderstood Bible 

The "rod" as here used is a sceptre, or sign and 
symbol of authority and rule, and govern- 
ment. When it was prophesied (Gen. 49: 10) 
that " the sceptre shall not depart from Judah ;" 
and again (Zech. 10: 11) " The sceptre of Egypt 
shall depart," and in other references to 
royal dominion, the same Hebrew word is used 
that is here rendered " rod," as the symbol of 
parental authority. A parent has a duty to gov- 
ern wisely and lovingly his child, so as to guide 
and direct and instruct his child to its well-doing 
and God-serving in maturer years. A parent 
ought always to have a rod, or a sceptre, of 
authority. But many a child has been trained 
without a single flogging, or anything like it. 
Neither chastening nor chastising is necessarily 
punishing or flogging. 

How many parents and teachers use chasten- 
ing or chastising as if it were a form of 
retaliatory punishment, simply because they 
themselves are wholly ignorant of their duty ! If 
those parents or teachers had been properly 
trained, their children would be differently, and 
more hopefully, cared for. 



XXVI 

MIZPAH : A BARRIER, NOT A BOND 

A favorite symbol of union, or synonym of 
a loving covenant, is the Hebrew word " Miz- 
pah." It is engraved on rings of betrothal or 
marriage, or on brooches and bracelets and 
other gifts, as a pledge of undying affection. 
There seems to be no doubt in the popular mind, 
or even in the mind of scholars generally, as to 
the significance of this word in its appropriate- 
ness to such use ; yet, as a matter of fact, there 
is no foundation for the idea, other than in the 
misunderstanding of an English sentence ac- 
companying its mention in a single place in the 
Bible story. By that misunderstanding a barrier 
separating two persons is supposed to be a bond 
uniting them : a limitation of the rights of each 
is counted a loving link between both. 

Laban and Jacob seemed to be fairly well 
matched in their craftiness and cunning, yet, in 
a long series of years Jacob had the advantage 
of his father-in-law in the struggle (Gen. 29-31). 
When Jacob took his wives and children and 
flocks, with a portion of Laban's sacred belong- 

241 



242 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ings, and secretly left Padan Aram for his pa- 
ternal home in lower Canaan, Laban angrily pur- 
sued him, and overtook him at Mt. Gilead. There 
the two reproached each other, each for seeking 
to overreach and defraud the other. Finally 
they agreed to disagree, and to enter into a 
covenant of peaceful disagreement. They set 
up a stone pillar, and a stone-heap of testimony, 
on the territorial boundary line agreed on be- 
tween the two. Each was to keep himself on his 
side of the line, and not to pass over it to harm 
the other. The Lord, the God of their fathers, 
was to be witness of this covenant, and he was 
to see that it was faithfully observed (Gen. 31 : 

44-53). 

They called the heap of stones " the witness 
heap :" in Laban's dialect, " Jegar-sahadutha ; " 
in Jacob's, " Galeed." The pillar, or tower, they 
called "Mizpah," " the watch tower ;" for 
Laban said, " Jehovah watch between me and 
thee, when we are absent one from another." 
This has commonly been considered as meaning 
that the Lord would keep the two in loving 
union or accord while they were temporarily 
apart. But a close examination of the facts, in 
the light of primitive customs, shows that its 
import is rather that the Lord would see to it 
that they kept apart in a sacred regard for each 



Mizpah: A Barrier, Not a Bond 243 

other's rights, and that he would visit judgment 
on them if they did not recognize the established 
boundary line of division. 

In the earliest records we have of Oriental civ- 
ilization, the stone pillar, or obelisk, as a bound- 
ary landmark stands prominent for the division 
of the territory of tribes and peoples and king- 
doms. This custom prevailed long before the 
day of Laban and Jacob. An accompanying 
stone-heap as an altar, for sacrifice or for a 
sacramental meal, was commonly near the pillar. 
Each conventional boundary stone pillar was 
under the guardianship and protection of a local 
divinity, or of the god worshiped by its setter- 
up. The curse of that divinity was invoked 
against whoever should remove or destroy the 
boundary mark. The invoked divinity would 
be always on watch and guard for the defense 
of the boundary, even though the land owner 
was at the time far away, and ignorant of an 
efifort to violate the covenanted dividing line. 

In this instance, Laban and Jacob invoked the 
Lord God of their fathers to watch the agreed 
boundary, and to protect it from violation by 
either of the covenanting parties. In view of 
the clearly established purpose of such a border 
watch-tower, it is somewhat singular that " Miz- 
pah " has come to be regarded as a sacred bond 



244 Our Misunderstood Bible 

of union, instead of as an assurance of perma- 
nent division. 

To give a ring, or a bracelet, or a brooch, with 
" Mizpah " engraved on it, at the time of be- 
trothal or marriage, might be properly under- 
stood as suggesting, "A line is drawn between 
us that must be sacredly observed. You have 
your rights on one side of it, and I have my 
right on the other side. Let the rights of each 
be sacredly guarded by the other. There is to 
be no common life between us. The Lord watch 
between us all the time, so that the rights of 
either be not harmed." 

But that is not the idea of those who inscribe 
" Mizpah " on a betrothal or wedding ring ; or 
of those who use it as a covenant watchword 
or motto. And this is because of the very cpm- 
mon misunderstanding of a Bible term. 



XXVII 
THE INFERIORITY OF ANGELS 

What is an angel? What is an angel at his 
best? There are certain well-defined ideas as 
to this order of beings, ideas that are prevalent 
among children and artists, and even among 
prominent theologians ; but the question is, are 
these ideas intelligently based, and is there any 
ground, in the Bible teachings, for supposing 
that they are reasonably accurate. 

The children sing heartily — as heartily as if 
there were sense in the words — about angels : 

" I want to be an angel, 

And with the angels stand. 
A crown upon my forehead, 
And a harp within my hand." 

Dante and Milton and Raphael and Murillo 
and Dore and other artists, modern or ancient, 
have pictured angels with wings and harps and 
other instruments, thus giving some reason for 
the children's song. But as to authoritative 
statements concerning angels the Bible text is 
more trustworthy than either children or artists, 
and this it is that makes confusion when the 
Bible text is examined, even with the aid of 
eminent commentators. 

245 



246 Our Misunderstood Bible 

Many of our ideas concerning angels have 
come from Jewish Talmudic writings and from 
the writings of Muhammadans, yet we would 
hardly claim that these were to be held, as an 
authority, in comparison with the Bible record, 
for a Christian's guidance. Yet we quote, as if 
authoritatively, some of these non-Christian 
writings about angels as freely as we do Milton 
and Dante. 

Among learned commentators, Hooker — 
" the judicious Hooker " — a divine of whom 
Hallam the historian and critic says that he is 
the finest, as well as the most philosophical 
writer of the Elizabethan period, declares, as if 
authoritatively, that angels " are spirits, imma- 
terial and intellectual, the glorious inhabitants 
of those sacred palaces, where nothing but light 
and blessed immortality, ... all joy, tran- 
quillity and peace, even forever, doth dwell. As, 
in numbers, they are huge, mighty, and royal 
armies, so likewise [are they] in perfection of 
obedience unto that law which the Highest, 
whom they adore, love, and imitate, hath im- 
posed upon them. . . . Beholding the face 
of God, they adore him ; being rapt with love of 
his beauty, they cleave unto him; desiring to 
resemble him, they try to do good unto all crea- 
tures, and especially unto the children of men." 



The Inferiority of Angels 247 

And one of the standard modern dictionaries 
of the Bible says : " By the word ' angels ' . . . 
we ordinarily understand a race of spiritual 
beings of a nature exalted far above that of 
man, although infinitely removed from that of 
God, whose office is to do him service in heaven, 
and by his appointment to succor and defend 
men on earth." 

Yet if we stop to examine closely the Bible 
record, we are likely to be surprised at finding 
how small a proportion of these popularly be- 
lieved statements concerning angels have a sub- 
stantial basis for their existence. 

To turn to the record of man's creation, who 
would ever be led to suppose that man was lower 
than the crowning work of God's handiwork? 
Does God seem to say, " We have creatures ap- 
proaching our own image, but we will now form 
some w T ho are lower than the highest of these, 
and see what can be done with such ? " That is 
not the record. The record is " God said, Let 
us make man in our image, after our likeness " 
(Gen. i : 26) — not of a lower order than angels, 
but after the very likeness of God, and in God's 
very image. 

There were good angels and fallen angels at 
that time, but there is no record of any such in- 
terest on God's part in the fallen angels as there 



248 Our Misunderstood Bible 

was in fallen man, when Jesus Christ came 
among men to save them. God's crowning work 
of creation was man. Angels were below that 
standard, and they have always remained there. 

The gospel and its messages are gifts of God 
in which we rejoice, and for which we 
are grateful, "which things," as Peter says, 
"angels desire to look into" (i Pet. i: 12). 
Does that seem to point to angels as if they were 
man's superiors in either capability or possibili- 
ties ? Is there anything in the Bible that would 
cause us to believe that angels are superior to 
the race created in God's own image, and in 
the form which God's own Son took upon him- 
self in working out salvation? " Know ye not," 
said Paul, "that we shall judge angels?" at the 
end of this age, "how much more, things that 
pertain to this life?" (1 Cor. 6: 3). Does that 
look as if angels were our superiors ? "Are they 
not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do serv- 
ice for the sake of them that shall inherit salva- 
tion?" (Heb. 1: 14). What reason have any 
to think angels superior to, or the equals of, 
redeemed saints? 

In the first place, we are liable to be misled 
by the word " angel," which does not mean what 
it seems to mean. We commonly think of an 
" angel " as the painter, or sculptor, or poet, has 



The Inferiority of Angels 249 

represented it; and we take it for granted that 
the artist had some basis for his representation. 
At all events, we think of an " angel " as being 
a well-defined form, when we have no reason 
to think so. While we do not know exactly 
the form of an angel, we can be sure that an 
angel is not in any sense as the painter, or the 
sculptor, or the poet, or the ordinary commenta- 
tor, has represented him. 

The word translated " angel," or as trans- 
ferred from the original, in the Bible text, means 
simply " messenger n or " agent." If it had 
been uniformly translated thus, as it sometimes 
is, with no indication of its being a peculiar class 
of beings, as in i Samuel 19: 20, Job 1 : 14, Luke 
7 : 24 ; 9 : 51, and in scores of other places in the 
Old Testament and in the New, there would 
have been less confusion as to its meaning. 
Moreover, the word " messenger," or " agent," 
or " representative," would hardly have excited 
the imagination of artists to their present repre- 
sentation of angels. An angel, as the Bible rep- 
resents or speaks of an angel, is not only gener- 
ally a man, or being inferior to man who is 
the crowding work of creation, but it is some- 
times not an intelligent being, although some- 
times it is such. An angel, or a messenger, or 
an agent, of God, may be a pestilence, or a hur- 



250 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ricane, or a flame, or other agency of destruc- 
tion. Thus, as in Psalm 104, where God's angels 
are spirits, and his ministers are a flaming fire. 
As the term " angel " is always a figure of 
speech, and never a closely defining term, there 
is some reason for our misunderstanding it. Of 
course, if God would send a message from the 
spirit world to man, God would select what 
seemed like man, as man could not perceive a 
spirit. But that would not show what was the 
ordinary form or personality of an angel. 

Perhaps the figurative language of the closing 
book of the New Testament is responsible for 
much of the popular misrepresentations of angels 
as they are. Yet no intelligent reader supposes 
that the figures of speech in Revelation are to 
be taken literally. And the Jewish Talmudic lit- 
erature has undoubtedly largely influenced our 
Christian thought, and often for harm. 

Of one thing we may be sure, neither the Old 
Testament nor the New gives us to understand 
that angels are the equals of human beings 
formed in the image and likeness of God, or 
that they will ever have the spiritual privileges 
and power of those who are redeemed in Christ. 

It is true that the word " angel " is sometimes 
employed in the Bible tohen the context would 
indicate that it refers to the Christ. In such 



The Inferiority of Angels 251 

cases, of course, the angel is of an order vastly 
superior to man, but that superiority is in the One 
who is the messenger, not in his being a mes- 
senger, or an angel. 



XXVIII 
CHERUBIM UTTERLY UNLIKE ANGELS 

Pictures and poems have, perhaps, done as 
much to mislead both young and old as to the 
true meaning of Bible texts and Bible teachings 
as any other human agency. In some cases the 
painter, or the poet, has himself misread Bible 
words, and thus been a pioneer misleader as to 
the truth taught. In other cases the picture, or 
the poem, simply represents, or reproduces, the 
erroneous popular view of what is exhibited, or 
suggested in the Bible. Thus Michelangelo 
having misunderstood the word, in the Latin ver- 
sion of the Bible, for "rays" or "horns" of light 
on the encircled head of Moses, perpetuated his 
mistake to the misleading of future generations, 
by carving in stone his magnificent Moses, with 
two matter-of-fact horns growing out of his 
great skull. And Dante and Milton have prob- 
ably shaped more of the generally accepted ideas, 
even as expressed by prominent preachers in 
the pulpit, concerning angels and demons, and 
their doings in heaven and in hell, than all the 
pages of the Bible put together. 

But perhaps of all the persons, places and 

252 



Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 253 

things spoken of in the Bible none have been 
more generally, or more completely, misunder- 
stood and misrepresented than angels and cheru T 
bim. In the first place, angels and cherubim are 
often spoken of as if they were of the same order 
of beings, or having something in common, 
when in fact there seems to be no justification 
of, or excuse for, this remarkable blunder in any 
text or teaching of the Bible. Poets and paint- 
ers generally seem disposed to represent an 
angel as a delicate young woman in a dress, or 
gown, with a long train. Yet the Bible gen- 
erally represents an angel, or a celestial mes- 
senger, or servitor, as an able-bodied man set 
to doing the Lord's work. It is to the honor of 
women that, in the holiest teachings, the hew- 
ing of wood and the drawing of water, and the 
doing of guard duty, and even the running of 
errands, and all such work, are supposed to be 
in man's line, rather than woman's in the celes- 
tial sphere. But the painters and poets, at all 
events the more popular poets, take quite the 
opposite view of this from that given by the in- 
spired writers. 

It would certainly seem a bad enough blunder 
to represent an angel as a delicate young woman, 
but even this is outdone by the more baseless 
and more absurd blunder of representing a 



254 Our Misunderstood Bible 

cherub (the singular of the plural, or dual, term 
cherubim) as similarly a delicate young woman 
in evening dress. Yet this blunder of blunders 
has been made by many persons, who have ac- 
tually read their Bible even if they have not 
studied it. How the Bible text is misused and 
perverted ! 

Raphael, in his Sistine Madonna, conforms to, 
or suggests, the popular idea of a " cherub " 
when he paints two bright little boys, as if at- 
tending spirits, or angels, delightfully impressed 
by the Divine Child in his Virgin Mother's arms. 
Milton tells how 

"The cherubic host in thousand choirs 
Touch their immortal harps of golden wires." 

And, even in our comparatively enlightened 
time, our Lowell says, out of memories of a 
lamented child, 

"He seemed a cherub who had lost his way, 
And wandered hither." 

Now, while none of us can say with positive- 
ness just what was the precise shape or form 
of the Bible cherub, all of us can say positively 
that the Bible describes the cherubim as some- 
thing very unlike little boys, or young women, or 
even like the popular conception, or the Bible 
description, of God's " angels," or spiritual mes- 
sengers. 



Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 255 

The Bible speaks of a cherub, or of the dual 
cherubim, as part ox, and part lion, and part 
eagle, and part man (Ezek. 10: 14). That 
does not answer to the description of any known 
being in this world, so that we can be confident 
that in it we have a truer suggestion of the Bible 
cherub than is found in a little boy, a young 
woman, or an active man. Yet in view of well- 
known Oriental imagery, we can see that the ox 
represents service, the lion represents strength, 
the eagle represents aspiration, or power of 
flight, and the man represents intelligence and 
human God-likeness. All these symbols are in 
God's creation, and all conjoin for the doing of 
God's will at his command or appointment. 

The first Bible mention of cherubim is when 
they were placed at the entrance to Eden, to 
guard it from outside approach, after the expul- 
sion of our first parents. That certainly does 
not suggest the idea of a little boy, or a young 
woman, put on guard, even if armed with a re- 
volving and flaming sword. Again, there were 
cherubim above the Ark of the covenant, inside 
of which there was an explicit agreement that 
there should be no likeness, or image, of any- 
thing in earth or heaven tolerated by God's chil- 
dren. That forbids the thought of figures of 
little boys, of young women, or man-like angels, 



256 Our Misunderstood Bible 

but it does not forbid the idea of symbols of 
truth which were and are not images of existing 
creatures. 

In more than one place in the Bible (2 Sam. 
22\ 11; Psa. 18: 10) it is said of the Almighty, 
when he would respond to an appeal from his 
earthly children, that 

"He rode upon a cherub and did fly." 

Who, in view of that, would entertain, or coun- 
tenance, the thought of a little boy, or a young 
woman, or of a man-shaped angel, as being the 
upbearer of the Almighty from place to place? 
Yet the symbolic forces of creation, as repre- 
sented in the Bible references to the cherubim, 
may well be thought of as accompanying the Al- 
mighty in his movements in the universe. 

We, not unnaturally, want to think of any- 
thing that we read of, or hear of, as measurably 
like something that we have actually seen or 
known of. Each of our ideals has its basis or 
promptings in some real in our sphere of ex- 
perience or thought. But an Oriental prefers to 
think of spiritual things, or religious truths, as 
suggested, rather than described in the things 
of nature. Thus, while we might think of a 
cherub or an angel as a boy, or a young woman, 
or a man, because we are acquainted with those 
objects in nature, an Oriental would feel sure 



Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 257 

that any human pattern could not represent the 
spiritual and supernatural to which his thoughts 
were directed. He prefers to think of some- 
thing beyond all that he has seen or known. 
Thus in the symbolic and suggestive cherubim, 
with its combination of all that is best in nature, 
and with yet more above and beyond; for we 
must ever bear in mind that the Bible was writ- 
ten by Orientals, and primarily for Orientals. 

The idea of teaching and impressing religious 
truth by symbolism through a combination of 
representative ideas in the form of various cre- 
ated beings is not peculiar to the Hebrews, nor 
did it originate with them. Long before Moses 
was born, or before the Bible writings as we have 
them were begun, the idea was a common one 
in the world. This symbolism was very different 
from idolatry, or from image worship, even 
though evil man might in any case pervert the 
suggestive symbols into an object of wrong wor- 
ship. Thus with the Egyptian Sphinx, with the 
head of a man and the body of a lion. These 
figures surmounted a temple, or bordered an 
avenue to a temple, not as idols, but as typical 
of strength and wisdom. In Greece the Sphinx 
combined the form of the lion, the woman, and 
the eagle; for in Greece they gave more promi- 
nence than in Egypt to grace, beauty and imag- 



258 Our Misunderstood Bible 

ination, in addition to their high estimate of 
strength. 

Again, in Babylon and Assyria there were the 
human-headed and winged bulls at the threshold 
of the palaces and temples of rulers and priests. 
These perhaps more nearly resembled the cheru- 
bim at the threshold of Eden, and at other points 
in Hebrew history. We need not suppose 
that the Hebrews imitated any of the Egyptian 
or Assyrian symbolic forms when they made 
the cherubim, nor even that the Hebrews re- 
ceived a suggestion from them, but we can per- 
ceive that the use in imagery of a combination 
of created forms as suggestive of important 
spiritual truths was a well-known mode of teach- 
ing long before the days of Moses, or Jacob, 
or Abraham. 

It has, indeed, been suggested by eminent 
Bible scholars, that this known truth, combined 
with the very words of the Hebrew text, give 
occasion for thinking that the " golden calf " 
worshiped before Mt. Sinai was a cherubic 
form, rather than the form of Apis or another 
Egyptian divinity. It is also thought by many 
that the " calves " set up by Jeroboam at Dan 
and Bethel were cherubim, to suggest that the 
mercy seat was the whole land of Israel between 
the cherubim, now that the Temple at Jerusalem 



Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 259 

was no longer the place for worship by Israel- 
ites. However this may be, we know enough to 
be sure that we are not justified in supposing 
that cherubim and angels are of the same class 
or order or appearance of beings. It would be 
no more unreasonable for us to claim that a well- 
made kaleidoscope, with its varying suggestions, 
is identical with a recognized postman and letter- 
carrier bringing a precious letter from his loved 
home to a longing son separated from his dear- 
est ones of the home and the heart. 



XXIX 
SPIRIT, NOT SOUL, MAN'S PRE-EMINENCE 

It seems to be commonly believed, among the 
poorly informed, that the soul of man is the 
spirit of man, and that therefore man's soul is 
his pre-eminent possession, which distinguishes 
him from the lower animals and the brute cre- 
ation. But this opinion is not in accordance 
with Bible teachings, or with sound reasoning. 

The lower animals have bodies and souls. Man 
alone has body, and soul, and spirit. It is the 
spirit, therefore, and not the soul, that marks 
man's pre-eminence. A failure to recognize this 
truth is a failure to appreciate the superiority of 
man, even the lowest of the human race, to the 
lower animals, even the highest and best trained 
of the brute creation. 

But man and the lower animals have a mate- 
rial body, and a life, an animal life, within the 
body, which is common to, or alike in, the two 
orders of being. That which is the life of the 
body, which vivifies the body and enables it to 
perform its functions, is much the same in man 
and brutes. In the Hebrew and in the Greek 

260 



Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 261 

the word designating this animal life is ordi- 
narily the same for both man and the lower ani- 
mals. Both in the Old Testament and in the 
New this word is translated " soul." The word 
" soul " therefore applies to that animal life 
which man has in common with the brutes. If 
this be immortal in man, it would seem to be 
immortal in brutes; but there is nothing in the 
Bible which seems to justify the belief that im- 
mortality attaches to the soul or the mere animal 
life in brutes, or in man. 

Man has, however, that which distinguishes 
him from the brute, that which is his highest 
possession, or nature, and which marks him as 
above all others who dwell in mortal bodies. 
That possession, or nature, is not the " soul," 
but the " spirit." " God is a spirit," and man, 
in having a spirit, is so far God-like, capable of 
knowing God and of aspiring to God. Immor- 
tality attaches to God's spirit, and, because man 
is like God in having a spirit, it is fair to conclude 
that man's spirit, not man's soul, is immortal. 
While it is quite proper to say, in view of these 
well-known facts, that not only gorillas and 
chimpanzees, but dogs and cats and birds, as 
well as men, have souls, have animal life dis- 
tinct from their bodies, it cannot be said with 
any show of reason that any being but man has 



262 Our Misunderstood Bible 

an immortal spirit; that is only man's high pos- 
session or nature. 

Both in the Old Testament and in the New 
the word translated " soul " means " life," and 
is frequently so rendered. In many instances it 
would not make sense unless it were translated 
by such a term. Thus, " As to the life of all 
flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life 
thereof. . . . For the life of all flesh is the 
blood thereof " (Lev. 17: 14). The Hebrew 
word here rendered " life " is the same as that 
rendered " soul " where it is said of the Israel- 
ites, " Then shall they give every man a ransom 
for his soul unto Jehovah" (Exod. 30: 12); 
and again, where offerings are spoken of as 
brought to the Lord " to make atonement for our 
souls " (Num. 31 : 50). But no translator would 
think of saying, " The [animal] blood . . . 
is all one with the [immortal] soul." So, again, 
where Satan is represented as saying of Job, 
" Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he 
give for his life " (Job 2 : 4), it would be absurd 
to suppose that Satan deemed every man ready 
always to count his immortal portion as above 
every earthly interest. Yet it is the same He- 
brew word here rendered " life," as that given as 
" soul " in the declaration, " Jehovah redeemeth 
the soul of his servants ; and none of them that 



Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 263 

take refuge in him shall be condemned " (Psa. 
34: 22). It is the corresponding Greek word 
employed in the New Testament, where Jesus 
asks, " What shall a man be profited if he shall 
gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" 
(or, as the Revision renders it, " and forfeit his 
life" Matt. 16: 26). 

This term, it is true, sometimes stands for the 
individual as a living being, as where, in cases of 
disobedience, " that soul [which hath disobeyed] 
shall be cut off from his people " (Gen. 17: 14) ; 
and again where in an estimate of the spoils of 
war, it is said that " one soul of five hundred, 
both of the persons, and of the oxen, and of the 
asses, and of the flocks" (Num. 31: 28) is to 
be taken. In other instances it has a broader 
application as applying to, or as representing, the 
whole self. Thus, " My soul shall be joyful in 
Jehovah: it shall rejoice in his salvation" (Psa. 
35 : 9) ; and " Hear, and your soul shall live " 
(Isa. 55: 3). It is in this broader sense that 
Jesus seems to employ it, w r here, in the instance 
above cited, he asks, " What shall a man be 
profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and 
forfeit his life [or self] ? or what shall a man 
give in exchange for his life [or self] ? " (Matt. 
16: 26). Thus, again, in Matthew, it is said that 
we are to " fear him who is able to destroy 



264 Our Misunderstood Bible 

both soul and body [the entire self] in hell." 
In this sense, " soul " may be used to include 
the immortal spirit, the entire being or person- 
ality ; but nowhere is the word " soul " in either 
Testament specifically given for the immortal 
part of man, living after the death of the body 
and the soul. It is indeed, however, used as 
distinct from the spirit in various instances. 
" With my soul have I desired thee in the night ; 
yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee 
earnestly" (Isa. 26: 9); " The God of peace 
himself sanctify you wholly ; and may your spirit 
and soul and body be preserved entire, without 
blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ " 
(1 Thess. 5: 23). 

It is the " spirit " of man, not the " soul," 
which is spoken of in the Bible as the higher 
portion or nature of man, as over against, and 
frequently as in conflict with, the " body " as his 
lower portion or nature. Elihu says to Job, 
concerning man's capacity to receive wisdom: 

" There is a spirit in man, 
And the breath of the Almighty [or "the inspiration 
of the Almighty," as the Auth. Ver. has it] giveth 
them understanding" (Job 32: 8). 
Says the Psalmist : 
Into thy hand I commend my spirit: 
Thou hast redeemed me, O Jehovah, thou God of 
truth (Psa. 31: 5). 



Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 265 

It is said in the Proverbs : 

All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes : 
But Jehovah weigheth the spirits (Prov. 16: 2). 

The call of God to Israel is : 

Cast away from you all your transgressions, where- 
in ye have transgressed; and make you a new 
heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O 
house of Israel? (Ezek. 18: 31). 

It is in the New Testament as in the Old. 
" Who among men knoweth the things of a man, 
save the spirit of the man which is in him ? " 
(1 Cor. 2: 11). Our life in the body is so to be 
lived "that the spirit [not the soul] may be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus " (1 Cor. 
5: 5). The standard to strive for is of one 
" holy both in body and in spirit " (1 Cor. 7 : 34). 
We are to " cleanse ourselves from all defile- 
ment of flesh and spirit " (2 Cor. 7:1); and we 
are not to " walk after the flesh in the lust of 
defilement " (2 Pet. 2 : 10). That which is pop- 
ularly supposed to be the soul, as the higher and 
the immortal nature of man, is throughout the 
Bible spoken of as the spirit which man has from 
God, which can aspire after God, and can come 
to be joined to God (1 Cor. 6: 17). 

Of course, there are particular texts in the 
Bible which might at first glance seem not recon- 
cilable with the view that it is the spirit, and not 



266 Our Misunderstood Bible 

the soul, which is man's highest nature, and 
which gives to him the possibility of immortality 
as distinguished from the brutes. Yet a little 
examination shows that these texts are all con- 
sistent with that view, or are specially confirma- 
tory of it. 

" Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it 
goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast 
whether it goeth downward to the earth ? " 
(Eccl. 3: 21). That would seem to put man 
and the beast on a level as to the possession of a 
spirit. But that is given in Ecclesiastes — or 
Koheleth — as a skeptic's question, as the ques- 
tion of one who doubts whether man has a su- 
perior nature and destiny to the brutes. It is 
answered in the closing words of Koheleth's 
declaration concerning man's final state. Then 
" the dust [of man, not of the beast] returneth 
to the earth as it was, and the spirit [of man, 
not of the beast] returneth unto God who gave 
it" (Eccl. 12: 7). 

It is said that when " Jehovah God formed 
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life," that " man 
became a living soul" (Gen. 2: 7). Here it is 
soul, not spirit, that is spoken of as given to man 
by God. But it was then that man's body first 
received its animal life, or its soul, and it was 



Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 267 

then also that man was created in the image of 
God (Gen. i: 26, 27), with a spirit given him 
from God capable of knowing God, and of aspir- 
ing to be like God. This distinction between 
man's soul or his animal life, and man's spirit 
or his nature after God's likeness, is borne out 
all through the Scriptures. 

While the " spirit " is often employed as desig- 
nating man's personality or self, it is not spoken 
of as distinct from the " spirit " which survives 
the body. Even God himself uses the term soul 
as applicable to his entire nature or self, as when 
he says of his Messiah, " Behold, my servant, 
whom I uphold ; my chosen, in whom my soul 
delighteth" (Isa. 42: 1; Matt. 12: 18). 

Because the term " soul " is never given in 
the Bible as designating the higher nature of 
man, that portion of his nature which survives 
the perishing body with its animal life, we are 
liable to be confused ourselves, and to mislead 
and confuse our fellows, when we so employ the 
term " soul " in our ordinary speech. The cor- 
rect way is the best way, and the incorrect way 
is a poor way, whether we are intentionally in 
error or are simply careless in the employing of 
the wrong term. 



XXX 

WHAT WILL SATISFY US WHEN 
WE AWAKE? 

As a well-known text is ordinarily understood, 
we are encouraged to believe that we shall finally 
awake in the likeness of God, and that, being 
in that likeness, we shall be satisfied. The text 
is in the Psalms, and it reads, in both the King 
James version and the Anglo-American Re- 
vision, " I shall be satisfied when I awake, with 
thy likeness." But the ordinary understanding 
of this text is wholly wrong. The text as it 
stands in the original would be convincing as 
to this; and so, indeed, would be the text with 
its indicated meaning in the context in our Eng- 
lish version. The American Standard Revision 
makes the meaning clear by this translation : " I 
shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding 
thy form." 

The text reads, " I shall be satisfied, when I 
awake, with thy likeness." As it is ordinarily 
understood, it would read, " I shall be satisfied 
when I awake in thy likeness." Indeed, a volume 
of published sermons by a distinguished clergy- 
man gave this text in the erroneous and popular 

268 



What Will Satisfy Us When We Awake 269 

form, instead of the correct one. The words 
might more properly or more intelligently be 
rendered, " I shall be satisfied with thy likeness, 
when I awake." As ordinarily misread, it might 
be, " When I awake in thy likeness I shall be 
satisfied " — with my looks. 

The common understanding of this text is that 
it refers to the final awakening after the sleep 
of death. In this way it is spoken of in the 
hymns which we hear : 

"I shall be satisfied, 
I shall be satisfied, 
When I awake in thy likeness." 

Dr. J. Addison Alexander has suggested that 
this psalm was written as an evening psalm, with 
the outlook toward a better and a brighter com- 
ing day. The context would seem to justify 
this: 

"Deliver my soul from the wicked by thy sword ; 
From men, by thy hand, O Lord, 

From men of the world, whose portion is in this life, 
And whose belly thou fillest with thy treasure: 
They are satisfied with children, 
And leave the rest of their substance to their babes. 
As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness: 
I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." 

Men of the world, suggests the Psalmist, may 
be satisfied with the things of the world, secured 



270 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to them or to their children. But these are not 
enough for me. Only God is sufficient to meet 
my longings. Only when I am fully awake to 
the sight of him as he is shall I, or should I, be 
satisfied. 

It is a great mistake to suppose that God's 
promises for the future are to be realized only 
in another life. In the Bible, from Genesis to 
Revelation, there are ten promises for this life 
where there is one for the life to come. God's 
promises of good are for the life that now is, 
even if we are to have still better things here- 
after. This may not be the ordinary way of 
looking at God's promises, but it is the right 
way — the Bible way. 

Whether this be a psalm written for evening 
or for any other occasion, it is manifest that the 
psalmist wants it understood that whenever he 
awakes, whenever he sees things as they really 
are, he will be satisfied with the likeness of God, 
with the appearance of God, with God himself, 
and that nothing short of this will ever satisfy 
him. How much better is that thought than the 
ordinary one in connection with this psalm, that 
we shall be satisfied with our own appearance 
when we look like God! 



XXXI 

THE RESURRECTION NOT A MERE 
RISING AGAIN 

A " resurrection " is literally a " rising again/' 
In that sense we speak of nature's resurrection 
in the spring, and in the same sense we may 
speak of our resurrection every morning, as we 
awake from sleep and insensibility, and arise for 
a new day's life. But as applied to man's exist- 
ence, we use the word " resurrection " as mean- 
ing a man's awakening from the sleep of death, 
his rising again to life, after he has been for a 
time in the state of death. As a Bible phrase, 
and as a term used in theological writings, the 
resurrection means the rising to life of Jesus 
after his crucifixion and burial; and again it 
refers to the event when all that are dead shall 
rise from the grave, and come anew to life at the 
end of the age. 

But while the word " resurrection," as used in 
the Bible or outside of it, means, as a word, no 
more than a rising again or an awakening, the 
idea of a resurrection or of the resurrection im- 
plies in its signification more than a mere awak- 
ening, or a rising up, from the dead. The resur- 

271 



272 Our Misunderstood Bible 

rection of our bodies after death is in connection 
with a change, so that the new body shall be in 
accordance with the conditions and needs of the 
new life as distinct from the old life. On this 
point the text and the narrative of the Bible are 
explicit and positive, and the failure to realize 
this is a failure to comprehend the importance 
and magnitude of the central fact of Christianity 
— the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

"We all shall not sleep [the sleep of death], 
but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible [already incorruptible when they 
are raised], and we [still in our corruptible 
bodies] shall be changed. For this corruptible 
[body] must put on incorruption, and this mor- 
tal [body] must put on immortality " (i Cor. 
15: 51-54). "For since by man came death, 
by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall 
all be made alive. But each in his own order: 
Christ the first-fruits [of the resurrection har- 
vest] ; then they that are Christ's, at his coming " 
(1 Cor. 15: 21-23). 

" But some one will say, How are the dead 
raised? and with what manner of body do they 
come? Thou foolish one, that which thou thy- 



The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 273 

self sowest is not quickened [made alive] except 
it die : and that which thou sowest, thou sowest 
not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it 
may chance [to be] of wheat, or of some other 
kind ; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased 
him, and to each seed a body of its own. . . . 
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is 
sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption 
[not raised to become afterward incorruptible, 
but raised in incorruption] ; it is sown in dis- 
honor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weak- 
ness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural 
body, it is raised a spiritual body" (i Cor. 15: 

35-44). 

This is the order and the manner of the resur- 
rection, according to the assurances of the in- 
spired writer. Jesus was the " first-fruits " of the 
resurrection ; but he was not the first person who 
had been raised to life from the dead. Hence 
his resurrection could not have been his mere 
rising up in his unchanged natural body. Jesus 
had himself raised up Lazarus, calling him out 
of the grave where he had been dead four days. 
Jesus had called to life the dead son of the widow 
of Nain, as he was being carried to the grave. 
Long before this, Elisha had raised to life the 
dead son of the Shunammite woman. But no one 
of these risings from the dead was a " resurrec- 



274 Our Misunderstood Bible 

tion," as was that of Jesus, and as will be that of 
every follower of Jesus in the time of resurrec- 
tion. A change from a corruptible body to an 
incorruptible one, a change from a natural body 
to a spiritual body, there must have been in Jesus 
when he became the " first-fruits " of the resur- 
rection harvest. Was this so? The question is 
not, What have men, even creed and catechism 
writers, said about it? But, What is the Bible 
showing on the subject? 

When the " natural " body of Jesus was laid 
in the tomb, it had been reverently prepared for 
burial by godly Jews. It is important to have in 
mind the manner of Oriental burial. This was 
not like our Occidental method of arraying the 
corpse in fitting and seemly garments, but it was 
by enwrapping the body from feet to head in a 
clean cloth, or band, somewhat after the manner 
of a surgeon's bandaging. The arms, laid close 
to the side, were included in the wrapping. A 
napkin was about the head and face. Indeed, 
there seems to be a survival of this idea in our 
popular term of the " winding-sheet " as a gar- 
ment for the grave. The cerements of an Egyp- 
tian mummy better illustrate this than anything 
shown in the work of a modern undertaker. A 
reference is made to such burial cloths when the 
dead Lazarus came from his grave at Bethany 



The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 275 

at the call of Jesus : " He that was dead came 
forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes 
[as our English translation gives it, but it is 
more properly given in the margin grave-bands] ; 
and his face was bound about with a napkin. 
Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him 
go" (John ii : 44). When the body of Jesus 
was granted to Joseph of Arimathea, " he bought 
a linen cloth [a burial cloth], and, taking him 
[Jesus] down, wound him [rolled; the Greek 
word is "entulitto" : to roll or wrap] in the linen 
[burial] cloth, and laid him in a tomb which 
had been hewn out of a rock ; and he [Joseph] 
rolled a stone against the door of the tomb " 
(Mark 15: 46). 

Thus as to the death and burial of Jesus, or 
as to his giving up his natural life and his being 
rolled in the burial cloth and entombed. The 
stone was sealed by Pilate's order. Now as to 
the resurrection of Jesus on the third day. Did 
he simply rise from the dead, as did Lazarus at 
his call? Was his revivification merely like that 
of Lazarus and of the son of the widow of Nain? 
Or was he really in his rising the first-fruits of 
the resurrection, in his passing through that 
change from the natural to the spiritual body, 
which all the redeemed shall pass through, " in 
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 



276 Our Misunderstood Bible 

trump ? " What are the Bible indications as to 
this? No human eye saw the rising of Jesus 
from the dead. No hand, not even an angel's 
hand, rolled away the entrance stone, before 
Jesus passed out from the tomb. When, indeed, 
an angel of the Lord rolled away the stone and 
sat upon it, it was said that Jesus had already 
risen. What, then, was his rising from the dead ? 
Note the inspired record. 

Matthew says that the angel said to the women 
at the tomb, " Come, see the place where the 
Lord lay" (Matt. 28: 6), as if that sight itself 
would be proof of his resurrection. Mark re- 
peats this fact, that the young man angel said 
to the women at the empty tomb, " Behold, the 
place where they laid him!" (Mark 16: 6). 
Luke, in telling the story, says that Peter, look- 
ing into the empty tomb, saw " the linen cloths 
by themselves, " and went away wondering 
(Luke 24: 12). John further adds that Peter 
saw " the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that 
was upon his head, not lying with the linen 
cloths, but rolled up in a place [in its place] by 
itself." And John also, who was with Peter, 
" saw [this], and believed " (John 20: 6-8). It 
is evident from this fourfold specific record that 
there was something in the sight itself that was 
a testimony to the resurrection. This sight was 



The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 277 

not merely a blank, an absence of a body. What 
was it? 

Jesus' natural body had been changed to a spir- 
itual body ; his mortal body had put on immor- 
tality; that which was sown in humiliation had 
been raised in glory. Therefore the changed 
body had come out from the linen enwrappings 
of the body taken down from the cross, leaving 
those cerements as the transfigured butterfly 
leaves the chrysalis. Thus those linen enwrap- 
pings were of themselves irresistible evidence 
and proof of the resurrection of Jesus. As no 
human power could arrange them, there they 
lay, no fold disturbed, those of the body in their 
place, that of the face and head, the napkin by 
itself. What wonder that the angel called at- 
tention to this great proof of the resurrection! 
What wonder that Peter and others saw and 
believed! And, as from the Scriptures we 
understand, Jesus did not merely rise up from the 
dead, as others before had risen up from the 
dead, but was " the first-fruits of the resurrec- 
tion " harvest, and " in a moment, in the twink- 
ling of an eye," he was changed, so his loved 
ones are to be changed in the resurrection. 

Had Jesus risen up in his natural body, he 
could at once have been recognized by his loved 
ones who had known him in the years gone by. 



278 Our Misunderstood Bible 

But from Mary Magdalene, who thought he was 
the gardener, to the disciples with whom he 
walked on the way to Emmaus, those who so 
well knew his natural form and face seemed to 
have doubts as to his identity. His spiritual 
body was no longer subject to the conditions of 
his natural body. He passed out from the stone- 
enlocked tomb. He entered the room where 
were his disciples behind closed doors. His 
every move gave added proof of his changed 
body in his resurrection. 

Of course, when Jesus would prove his iden- 
tity to his disciples who doubted, he would be 
ready to show his nail-pierced hands and feet, or 
his spear-pierced side, as evidence to their human 
senses, but this was a purposeful departure from 
his now normal state. He thus adapted himself 
to the limitations and questionings of those still 
in the flesh. He thus convinced them that he 
was not a mere apparition, a " ghost." If one 
of our dear ones in the spirit life were permitted 
to-day to come again to us here on earth, that 
spirit would have to be known to us by some 
sign or appearance familiar to our human 
senses; but we should not suppose from that 
that therefore the loved one's normal or ordi- 
nary spiritual presence was the same as the for- 
mer physical presence. 



The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 279 

When Jesus, on the third day after his cruci- 
fixion, rose from the dead, his was not a mere 
awakening to, and an uprising in, his former nat- 
ural body. If it were so, the resurrection of 
Jesus could not be to us the assurance, the life, 
and the hope, that it now is. But Jesus came 
out of his linen cloth enwrappings, and out of 
his sealed stone tomb, in his changed resurrec- 
tion body. Of that the disciples had evidence 
in the very chrysalis cloths themselves, and the 
whole narrative is in keeping with this assur- 
ance. How many have erred in the reading of 
the Bible record as to this! Let us not come 
short of our hope and faith, as we are entitled 
to have them confirmed by this record. 



XXXII 

"AMEN, AND AMEN" 

No other Bible term, or word, is used so fre- 
quently, or by so many persons, or so unmean- 
ingly, as the word " Amen " — a Hebrew word. 
Jews, Christians, and Muhammadans are as one 
in using this term at the close of every prayer, 
as a response to any important covenant or 
agreement, and as a declaration or ejaculation 
in the announcement of many an important truth. 
Yet Jews, Christians, and Muhammadans fail 
of agreement as to the precise or definite 
meaning of this term. Their lexicons and their 
critical commentators are at variance as to its 
signification, and, when they attempt to give its 
supposed equivalent in well-known words, they 
admit that it does not always mean that, or 
anything like it. 

In translating the Hebrew Scriptures into any 
other language, it is customary to transfer this 
word in its Hebrew form, instead of translating 
it ; and then when the ordinary religious teacher 
attempts its explanation, he gives a mistaken 
rendering. When the average man uses the 
word " Amen " most earnestly and with greatest 

280 



"Amen, and Amen" 281 

emphasis, he knows least about its meaning. He 
seems, in fact, to be devout and hearty in his 
cry of " Amen " in proportion to his lack of any 
clear idea of its signification. 

A good Christian mother overheard her little 
daughter explaining to a younger brother the 
meaning of " Amen " at the close of his evening 
prayer : 

" ' Amen ' means ' You mustn't touch it/ " 
And that boy was satisfied. He accepted the 
explanation as if it were inspired. But his 
mother was shocked. It seemed as if her daugh- 
ter were irreverently leading her brother astray, 
and she called her in order to rebuke her. 

" What did you mean by telling your brother 
that ' Amen ' means ' You mustn't touch it ' ? " 
" Why you told me so, mamma/' 
" I told you so, my dear? When? " 
" I asked you what ' Amen ' meant, and you 
said, ' Let it be.' That's what I told Willie." 

Then the mother remembered that she had 
given her daughter the conventional explanation 
of " Amen " as "So let it be," which the daugh- 
ter had interpreted colloquially as " Let it be," 
or " Let it alone." Both mother and daughter 
had their conventional understanding of that 
mysterious term, but neither daughter nor 
mother was correct in the case. They simply 



282 Our Misunderstood Bible 

represented, in their vagueness of view, the aver- 
age user of the word " Amen." 

Another little girl, on being asked what she 
understood by " Amen," said artlessly : 

" I used to think it meant ' stop/ when we came 
to the end of a prayer. But when I went to the 
Methodist church I found they said ' Amen ' 
when they didn't stop, and weren't agoing to. 
Now, I don't know what it does mean." 

Her state of mind is a common one as to the 
meaning of the word 

It is useless to go to an English dictionary to 
find the meaning of a Hebrew word like this. 
Nor does a Hebrew dictionary assume to settle 
the question. The more common English idea 
is that " Amen " is a sort of supplementary 
prayer, at the close of a formal or specific prayer ; 
that it is a request for God to grant the petitions 
already asked, to let it be as has been desired 
of him. With this view of the word many use 
it entreatingly or doubtingly, as if saying, " I 
wish you would do, O Lord, as you are asked to 
do; but, of course, I cannot be sure that you 
will." Yet " Amen " is not a prayer. The idea 
of prayer or of request is not in it. It has more 
of the thought of positive affirmation, or of trust- 
ful acquiescence, or of confident response, than 
it has of petition, even in those places where it 



"Amen, and Amen" 283 

might seem to mean " Let it be thus. " The 
word has a sense of restful assurance in it, of un- 
wavering confidence, hardly to be found in any- 
other word in any language. Doubt or ques- 
tion or request has properly no place in connec- 
tion with the term. 

The root idea of the Hebrew word " Amen " 
is " to be firm," " to be stedfast," " to be strong/' 
" to be immovable. " The same idea is in the 
earlier Babylonian and in the later Arabic. A 
similar thought is in its use in the Greek. Hence, 
wherever the word is found, there must be the 
idea of stability and resultant confidence, not of 
question or doubt. The Assyrian term for 
" army," the strong support of the ruler, is from 
the same root. In the Arabic, " Al-Ameen," 
" The Faithful One," or " The Trusty One," is 
one of the names given to Muhammad. In the 
Apocalypse Jesus is spoken of as " the Amen :" 
" These things saith the Amen, the faithful and 
true witness, the beginning of the creation of 
God" (Rev. 3: 14). 

In all the derivatives of this word the idea of 
unwavering confidence, usually of restful trust 
in a person, is to be found as the main thought 
and factor. When, at the beginning of the his- 
tory of God's chosen people, the Lord called 
Abraham to leave his home, his people, his coun- 



284 Our Misunderstood Bible 

try, and to have no other purpose than to do and 
to be as the Lord would have him, and no spe- 
cific plans in life, it is said (Gen. 15: 6) that 
Abraham " heemeened the Lord " (" Amen-ed 
the Lord "), giving himself wholly and unreserv- 
edly to the Lord, and went out, not knowing 
whither he went, but restful in his unwavering 
trust in the Sure One. 

Our English version of the Bible renders this 
story of Abraham's act, or state, " He believed 
in Jehovah ; and he reckoned it to him for right- 
eousness. " But this fails to give to the ordinary 
reader the idea of the original ; for we, with our 
cold Occidental ways, are inclined to think of 
" belief " as in some way connected with the 
idea of an intellectual assent to abstract proposi- 
tions or fundamental truths, while an Ori- 
ental has no conception of this in such a 
case. Abraham heard the call of the Lord, and 
at once he gave himself up in unhesitating trust 
to the Lord, nothing doubting. He so trusted 
the Lord, so trusted himself to the Lord, so gave 
himself up to the Lord's very self, that the Lord 
counted him as a part of himself. This was the 
essence of an " Amen," of being an amen to the 
Lord's call. 

In Luther's Catechism the true idea of 
" Amen " is brought out in its definition ; but the 



"Amen, and Amen" 285 

suggestion of petition rather than of unwaver- 
ing assurance is added, as if that were one of 
its meanings, so that the average learner is still 
in doubt as to its real significance. Thus : " Amen 
meaneth namely, assuredly, that I am sure that 
petitions of this kind are accepted by my heav- 
enly Father, and heard by him ; because he hath 
commanded us that we should pray after this 
manner, and hath promised that he will hear us. 
Amen, Amen ! That is, truly, certainly, so be it." 
This final explanation tends to throw the whole 
meaning of the word in doubt, as it is in so 
many minds. The Church of England Cate- 
chism gives the definition of " Amen " simply as 
" So be it." 

In the Westminster Catechism it is said that at 
" the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer," " in tes- 
timony to our desire and assurance to be heard, 
we say ' Amen.' " But it will be admitted by 
users of that Catechism generally that the idea 
of " Amen " as expressing a " desire to be 
heard " is far more prominent than an " assur- 
ance " that we are heard. Yet it is this latter 
thought that is dominant in the word itself. In 
the Catechism of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church it is said, somewhat vaguely, that " Amen 
signifies verily, truly, or ' so let it be/ and at the 
end of our prayer expresses a hearty wish that 



286 Our Misunderstood Bible 

what we have asked for may be granted or ac- 
complished." 

The Heidelberg Catechism gives the true defi- 
nition of "Amen," without any doubtful note: 
" Amen signifies : It shall truly and certainly be. 
for my prayer is more assuredly heard of God 
than I feel in my heart that I desire these things 
of him." If all who have been brought up under 
this teaching use the word Amen in their prayers 
with this view of its meaning, they at least em- 
ploy it in faith, nothing doubting. 

As the word " Amen," with its derivatives, is 
much the same in the Arabic as in the Hebrew, 
an interest attaches to its use in Arabic. The 
first chapter, or sura, of the Quran, called the 
Fatihah, is employed among " the faithful " as 
an agreement, or covenant, or pledge of fidelity, 
in entering upon any common undertaking 01 
important movement. At the conclusion of that 
recitation " Amen " is always uttered devoutly, 
not as a prayer, but as a pledge of sincerity and 
faith. In the cities, as in the desert, of the East, 
two men, at the conclusion of a vital contract, 
recite together that sura, with their open palms 
as a book before them, and at its close they 
reverently repeat together the " Amen," as if 
that bound the whole beyond recall. 

The word " Amen " does not seem to be in the 



"Amen, and Amen" 287 

original record of that sura, yet it always accom- 
panies its recitation. Arabic commentators 
seem to be not quite sure as to the meaning of 
this word " Amen, " but they recognize its im- 
portance, and in all their suggested meanings 
the idea of stability and certitude prevails. 

In the Arabic, as in the Hebrew, the verb form 
of " Amen " carries the idea of trusting and of 
being trustworthy, and it is employed as indi- 
cating the unqualified committal of self to an- 
other. The writer once asked a learned Arabic 
scholar, who was a native of the East, what he 
understood by this term amana. He replied 
earnestly: "Amana means that a man gets out 
of himself and gets into another; he gives him- 
self up wholly to another, and trusts him utterly. 
It means that, and a great deal more. Amana 
means so much that I can't tell you all it means. " 

Dr. Edkins, the Chinese scholar, suggests 
("The Religions of China, " p. 118) that a 
correspondent word in the Chinese " for faith- 
fulness means both to be trustworthy and also 
to trust. " It is employed of devoted friendship. 

In the Greek, the word " Amen, " transferred 
in that form from the Hebrew, is variously trans- 
lated, but in every instance the idea seems to be 
that of "verily, " "truly," "certainly," or of 
" fidelity " and " confidence. " The idea is never 



288 Our Misunderstood Bible 

of petition or question, but always of assurance 
and restful trust. Jesus frequently opens his 
more important teachings with the wprds 
" Amen, " or " Amen, amen, " in affirmation of 
their certainty and importance. Our English 
Bible renders this term " verily/' or " verily, 
verily" (Matt. 5 : 18; 8: 10; 10: 15; Mark 3: 28; 
8: 12; Luke 4: 24; 12: 37; John 1: 51; 5: 19; 
6: 26, etc.). There can be no thought of peti- 
tion or of doubt in such an emphatic asseveration 
on the part of Jesus. 

The promises of God are said to be, in Christ, 
" Amen, unto the glory of God through us " 
(2 Cor. 1 : 20). They are all sure and true. At 
the giving of thanks, when praise, not petition, 
was in order, a believer was to respond, grate- 
fully, "Amen" (1 Cor. 14: 16). 

As in the Greek, so in the Hebrew, all the 
uses of " Amen, " in the Old Testament, are 
consistent with its meaning as an expression of 
unwavering confidence. The idea of petition or 
request never has a place there. When a woman 
charged with marital unfaithfulness was brought 
before the priest, under the ancient law of Israel, 
the priest invoked the judgment of God on her 
if she was guilty. At this invocation, it is re- 
corded : " And the woman shall say, Amen, 
amen" (Num. 5: 22). It is evident here that 



"Amen, and Amen" 289 

the woman, claiming to be innocent, confidently 
appeals to God as faithful and true, and there- 
fore sure to make clear her innocence. " Cer- 
tainly, certainly, " she says, " Truly, truly, " and 
she leaves herself and her case with God. It is 
not a prayer on her part, but an expression of 
her confidence in the fidelity of God. In con- 
sistency with its meaning elsewhere, " Amen " 
might indeed here mean " Let it be so. I am 
glad to rest the issue with God. ,, But that is 
trustful acquiescence, not petition. 

It would seem, however, that this illustration 
of the use of " Amen " is the one passage in the 
Bible which has been understood as a petition, 
and has led to the rendering of it as " So let it 
be, " or " So be it. " From this instance alone 
many have come to suppose that " Amen " is a 
request for God's favor; until, indeed, a great 
majority of its users employ it only as a call for 
a blessing that is by no means assured. 

The Talmudists, discussing the meaning of 
" Amen," suggest the threefold meaning of 
(i) an oath, (2) an acceptance of spoken words, 
and (3) a confirmation of words uttered. They 
cite in proof of these meanings the response of 
the accused woman (Num. 5: 22) ; the response 
of the people to the blessings and cursings at 
Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. 2j: 11-26); and the 



290 Our Misunderstood Bible 

utterance of the prophet in confident affirmation 
of his commanded message (Jer. 28: 6). These 
meanings are all consistent with the idea of 
unwavering trust in the fidelity and immovable- 
ness of the Lord. 

In recognition of the fact that even of old 
there was a lack of apprehension of the true 
meaning of " Amen " on the part of many who 
employed it, the Talmudists pointed out popular 
forms of this response or assurance that could 
not have God's approval. Thus there was the 
" hasty Amen, " or the " Amen cut short " 
through inattention ; and the " orphan Amen, " 
when its user had not heard the prayer or bene- 
diction to which it referred. 1 The " hasty " and 
" orphan " Amens are not unknown in Chris- 
tian congregations nowadays. 

" Islam, " or " submission, " is the expression 
of the Muhammadan's recognition of the inevi- 
table. He accepts the decrees of fate, because 
there is nothing else for him to do. " Amen, " 
on the other hand, is the trustful believer's con- 
fident committal of himself, his petitions, and 
his cause, to his loving Father and Friend, be- 
cause he is glad to do it, and because it is the 
best thing that could be done. 



1 These facts as to the Talmud I have on the authority of the em- 
inent Talmudist, the Rev. Dr. Marcus Jastrow. 



"Amen, and Amen" 291 

In all the Bible uses of the word " Amen," 
and in the meanings of that word as found in the 
Babylonian, the Hebrew, the Arabic, the Greek, 
and the English, it is evident that the prevailing 
idea is that of strength and confidence, resulting 
from unwavering trust in one who will not fail. 
Doubt, question, or anxiety, has no place in its 
use. It is thus in connection with a prayer, as in 
connection with a declaration of truth. Whether 
it be a blessing that is spoken, a series of peti- 
tions that is offered, or an invoking of God's 
intervention and decision that is made, what- 
ever doubt there may be at any point up to its 
close, the use of the final " Amen " is a confident 
cry without hesitation or fear. To say " Amen " 
is not to say "Oh that it might be so ! " but 
rather " Certainly, " "Truly," "Surely," "It 
will be right because God is God, and his will is 
to be done. " 

" Amen " was not a term used in the temple 
at Jerusalem. It seemed to be taken for granted 
there that God would be faithful, and be ever 
true to his promises. It is said that in the great 
synagogue in Alexandria an attendant stood on 
a platform in the center, and when the time 
came for all to respond he waved a flag, and all 
then answered " Amen." 

It is said by the rabbins that he who joined 



292 Our Misunderstood Bible 

sincerely in the " Amen, " in the synagogue 
service, had a share in the whole prayer, although 
he took no other part. 

" Amen " is never a minor portion of a prayer. 
It is the strongest and best part of it. It is not 
to be spoken in a minor key, or in a low tone and 
hesitatingly. That cry at least ought to be a 
glad and triumphant one, spoken from the heart 
and aloud with the lips, in confident assurance 
and in restful truth. " Amen and amen. " 
Whatever is our prayer, we should be able to 
leave it with God in faith. In this committal, 
at least, " whatever is not of faith is sin. " 



XXXIII 
CAN MAN DEFINE INFINITE TRUTH ? 

We should say it reverently, but we can say 
it positively, that, as to the disclosure to us of 
things infinite and spiritual, God is limited by 
our limitations. It is impossible that, while we 
are in the limitations of the natural and the 
finite, we should be able to comprehend in its 
incomprehensibleness, and to conceive in its in- 
conceivableness, the measures of the immeasur- 
able and the bounds of the boundless, in spheres 
and realms above and beyond all that we know 
or can comprehend. This is not because God is 
not willing to impart, but because we in our 
present state are unable to receive, the truth as 
it is concerning matters utterly beyond our 
sphere and scope of knowledge. 

It is so, in a sense, with a child and its parent, 
even while both are in the same human sphere. If 
a father who has had trials and experiences in 
life from which he would have his loved child 
spared, has a little babe for which he is respon- 
sible, can that father make all this clear to that 
babe while it is a babe ? Suppose the father 
takes the child when six weeks old, or six 

293 



294 Our Misunderstood Bible 

months, or even six years, and tells it what are 
life's severest trials and perils, pointing out 
every danger to be shunned and every duty to 
be performed ; will the child know it all ? If that 
effort be not successful, why is the failure ? 
Is the cause in the father's unwillingness to give 
needed knowledge, or in the child's incapacity to 
receive it ? This is in the human sphere, where 
father and child are on the same plane of exist- 
ence and being. But where one is finite and the 
other infinite, how much vaster the difference ! 
Who would say or think that the difference be- 
tween the wisest human father and his little babe 
is as wide and real as is that between the wisest 
human being and his Infinite and Almighty 
Father ? Yet the case being as we know it to 
be, what folly it is to think that man in the 
physical and finite sphere can, while he is in those 
limitations, comprehend or define what is in the 
sphere of the spiritual and the infinite. 

Even within the range of our ordinary human 
senses, we can perceive that the lack of but a 
single sense limits and restricts, not only in 
power of performance, but in capacity of com- 
prehension, one who lacks that sense, in com- 
parison with one who possesses it. What does 
one born blind know about the beauty of varied 
colors ? How useless to him is any description 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 295 

of the hidden beauties of sight, when never so 
eloquently described by an enthusiastic artist ! 
The permanent limitation is in the one blind, 
not in the one who sees and tries to enlighten 
by words. So of one born deaf, in comparison 
with a lover of music and of sweet sounds. How 
can one describe the soft tones of an iEolian harp 
to an ever-closed ear ? And so of each one of 
our physical senses. How can it be less diffi- 
cult for one in the realm of the spiritual and the 
infinite to communicate the truth as to that realm 
to one who has no experience or knowledge or 
powers of conception beyond the material and 
finite ? 

Even when an inspired writer who has been 
given a message to ordinary man seeks to con- 
vey in that message some knowledge or idea of 
a realm and sphere beyond and above the human 
and finite, he is necessitated to employ terms 
that suggest, but do not define, the truth. Thus 
the Apostle Paul, who declares that he has had 
disclosed to him by God's power some of the 
wonders and beauties of the spiritual realm and 
sphere, is unable to define in human words any 
one feature of his wonderful knowledge. He 
says that God's way are " past tracing out " 
(Rom. ii : 33). Even what he has seen and 
heard of the spiritual life and sphere he refers 



296 Our Misunderstood Bible 

to as " unspeakable [or, unutterable in] words " 
(2 Cor. 12 : 4). If Paul had known less he might 
have felt differently, or have had freer and more 
confident utterance about such things. 

Paul, referring to these things, uses words that 
are at the best not explicit or exact, and that are 
evidently contradictory and obviously insufficient 
for their purpose. Thus he says that at the close 
of our earthly life our personality shall be, in 
God's great field, " sown a natural body " and 
" raised a spiritual body. " But that is an obvious 
contradiction of terms, and it is clearly employed 
as such because of our human limitations. That 
which is a spirit is not a body. But Paul uses 
these words as suggestive, not as definitive. Thus 
he writes of " spiritual meat " and " spiritual 
drink, " and of a " spiritual rock. " If we take 
those words as suggestive of what cannot be de- 
fined in words, we do well. But if we take them 
as descriptive and definitive, we are childish, but 
not child-like, in dealing with the incomprehen- 
sible and the undefinable. 

Again the Apostle John, out of spiritual visions 
and through revelations to him by inspiration, 
suggests, in the Apocalypse, the beauties of the 
New Jerusalem, or of the spiritual city in the 
realm of the infinite. He speaks of the streets 
of " pure gold, as it were transparent glass, " 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 297 

and of the " wall of jasper/' and of the twelve 
gates of pearl, " each one of the several gates 
was of one pearl" (Rev. 21). And the dimen- 
sions and measurements of this heavenly city, 
the New Jerusalem, are specifically given in the 
record. 

Now this description has its value as sug- 
gestive to mankind, but not as an exact and pre- 
cise defining of the things spoken of. Yet even 
Christian scholars and valued biblical exegetes 
in modern times have insisted that, because the 
Bible is given to instruct man in his present 
sphere and limitations, its words must be taken 
as the literal truth, and believed accordingly. 
There stands out in my memory a sermon on 
this subject by a clergyman who was widely 
loved and honored. He said with reference to 
the description of the New Jerusalem in the 
Apocalypse that these words must be taken lit- 
erally, and not supposed to be merely figurative, 
or only as a suggestion of the truth. He said : 
" If God had wanted to give us an exact descrip- 
tion of the New Jerusalem as it is, and as it is to 
be, what words could he have employed that 
would be more specific than those chosen by him 
in this description of it as it is ? " As he read 
over again the text, he warned his hearers against 
seeking to find some other meaning for Bible 



298 Our Misunderstood Bible 

words than their obvious and plain meaning. And 
that was a common way of looking at Bible 
teachings a generation and more ago. 

I once heard an eminent divine in the Pres- 
byterian Church, — one of a family of distin- 
guished clergymen in this country, — express simi- 
lar views of Bible truth. All would recognize his 
honored name if it were mentioned. He took 
the measurements of the Holy City as given in 
its four-square form in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 : 
16), and showed mathematically that there was 
actually space there for housing all the sons of 
men that have ever existed in the six thousand 
years since Adam (that was the period of man's 
existence on earth as claimed in those days). He 
allowed three generations to a century, and he 
estimated the world's population at the numbers 
now existing, and the same from the days of 
Adam to the end of the six thousand years. In 
this estimate or calculation he had one series of 
tenements above another after the manner of 
the sky-scraper buildings of to-day ; as " the 
length and the breadth and the height thereof are 
equal. " His calculation allowed a residence for 
every soul equal to the dimensions of the average 
city house lot of to-day. Was not that a liberal 
allowance for the average soul ? It would cer- 
tainly seem to be fully enough for some souls. 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 299 

It was under the influence of such teaching as 
to Bible literature that I and others were brought 
up. But as I have elsewhere shown, Dr. Horace 
Bushnell threw new light on the Bible in his 
epoch-making essay, " Our Gospel a Gift to the 
Imagination. " I was thus led out of thick dark- 
ness toward the light. But even good Dr. Bush- 
nell did not follow to its legitimate and necessary 
conclusion the great truth concerning Bible teach- 
ings and phraseology that he enunciated. I even 
ventured to say to him that this was so when the 
good Doctor first read to his ministerial brethren 
his new volume on " Forgiveness and Law, " giv- 
ing his later ideas of the profoundest theology, 
as preferable to that then prevalent. 

Walking away from that gathering with Dr. 
Bushnell, I said to him in daring frankness, 
" Doctor, you know how I look up to your 
greatness, and what hard work you had to teach 
me some of your great lessons. But the one 
that was most to me was that our gospel is a 
gift to the imagination, because God has to use 
terms that suggest rather than define theological 
truths. Yet now, having taught me that, you at- 
tempt to show the outlines of a new theology. 
When I get to heaven I may find that your new 
view is a correct one. But I can't take it in this 
being. ,, At this the Doctor laughed good- 



300 Our Misunderstood Bible 

naturedly. I have never stopped thinking in the 
line in which he first started me. And the pres- 
ent chapter is one of the results. 

Many persons, even eminent theologians and 
profound thinkers, to this day seem to lose sight 
of the truth that there is no time or measure of 
time in eternity, and that to speak of past or 
future with God is to lose sight of the truth that 
in eternity there is only the ever-present. Thus 
it always has been ; thus it always must be. God 
who was, and is, and is to be, is co-existent with 
eternity. To speak of the past or the future with 
God is to employ human phrases with reference 
to the infinite and eternal ; as when we speak of 
a " spiritual body, " or " spiritual meat, " or 
" spiritual drink, " or of the self-contradictory 
term " spirit-matter. " 

" But forget not this one thing, beloved, that 
one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, 
and a thousand years as one day. " That is no 
rash saying, but is the statement of an inspired 
writer; and even that is not to be taken literally, 
but obviously as a mere suggestion. In former 
days it was the custom to take that passage lit- 
erally, and to explain it by saying that six days 
of labor were to be followed by a day of rest. 
Thus it was in the creation, and thus it must be 
in the final culmination ; that was a common way 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 301 

of looking at it. As with God a thousand years 
are as one day, so six thousand years of the 
earth's continuance are as six days; and those 
six thousand years or days are to be followed by 
a day or period of rest, in the millennium of sab- 
bath repose. How many times I have heard it 
said that the millennium is to begin at the period 
of six thousand years from creation ! But thai 
Bible statement, as we now perceive, does not 
mean that. It indicates, on the contrary, that 
the measures of time do not apply to eternity. 
Eternity has no periods or stages like time, such 
as days or years or ages. It has neither past nor 
future ; it is always the ever-present. 

We have to employ human phrases and figures 
of time in order to suggest the infinite and eter- 
nal. In this sense we can say that with God, 
who was, and is, and is to be, the eternal I AM, 
the creation and the fall of Adam, and the birth 
and the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus, 
and Christ's second coming, and the day of the 
final judgment, and the end of the world and of 
the age, are all in God's sight as in the same 
instant. How meaningless in view of this truth 
are any words that seem to involve the thought 
of future ! There can be no such thing as plan- 
ning or deciding as to the future with One who 
is always the Ever-Present. Such a phrase can 



302 Our Misunderstood Bible 

seem to have an explicit meaning, and thus can 
be a means of confusion and worry to one who 
is finite and human; and in the sense that it is 
used, or misused, by ordinary, or even by extra- 
ordinary, minds, it is utterly unreal and untrue. 

We know that in our ordinary sleep we may 
live years in a few minutes of dream or thought, 
and that in our waking thoughts we may go to 
the ends of the earth and to the bounds of the 
remotest fixed star in a second's time; for 
thought is not limited like matter. In view of 
this truth, what folly it is for one who is in time 
and in the flesh to attempt to limit and define in 
human words the spiritual and the infinite and 
the eternal ! As God's children on earth come in 
the progress of ages to know more they will as- 
sume to know less. They will see that the spir- 
itual and the eternal and the infinite cannot be 
stated or defined in human words. What folly 
must our present wisdom seem in God's sight ! 

Bible statements concerning God's planning, or 
acting, or changing his plans or actions, as to 
particular men's conduct or destiny, are sugges- 
tions to men as to their duty and dependence. 
But to use such statements as if they literally 
applied to or included God, who is the Ever 
Eternal, not subject to the conditions of time, 
is utterly and always incorrect and improper. 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 303 

How the best of men have been misled by such 
sad misreadings and perversions of Bible teach- 
ings! 

. We recognize the folly and falsity of Mormon 
excesses in the application of anthropological 
views as applied to God in his relations to hu- 
manity. Thus they claim that God is spoken 
of in the Bible as having a " face " and a " back " 
and " arms " and " fingers M and " feet ;" there- 
fore he must have a form like man's. We admit 
the absurdity of this ; but we have not sufficiently 
recognized the error of every religious writer 
who speaks of or deals with God's planning or 
acting as if there were, or had been, any pos- 
sibility of human measures, as of time, in eter- 
nity. The moment we depart from the truth 
that eternity is ever and always and only the 
present, and not the past or the future, we depart 
from the proper way of thinking of God, whose 
being is suggested but not defined to man in 
human language, whether used in the Bible or 
elsewhere. The other is the Mormon method. 

Man having before him the thought of systems 
of human doctrine and the requirements and lim- 
itations of human ideas, is careful to declare and 
affirm explicitly and definitely that God is not the 
author of sin ; that God ordains only good, but 
permits evil. But God, being bound or ham- 



304 Our Misunderstood Bible 

pered by no such human limitations, does not 
hesitate to declare and affirm explicitly : " I am 
Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light 
and create darkness; I make peace, and create 
evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things " 
(Isa. 45: 6, 7). And again it is said by the in- 
spired writer that " an evil spirit from God came 
mightily upon Saul" (1 Sam. 18: 10), and simi- 
larly again and again. These obviously are not 
definitive statements ; for God's nature or meth- 
ods cannot be stated in human words ; but they 
are suggestions of the truth that God is over all 
that we know or know of. 

"His greatness is unsearchable" (Psa. 145: 
3). So of every Bible statement as to God's 
foreknowing or predestinating: they are sug- 
gestions of a truth that can cheer and inspire 
man ; they are not a declaration or a definition of 
God's power or plans in the inconceivable eter- 
nity. 

Human writers are careful to insist that God 
never causes man to sin. But God in his Word, 
as if not careful to consider the bounds of human 
beliefs, records as to a particular individual such 
distinct and seemingly inconsistent statements of 
fact as these : " I [the Lord] will harden Pha- 
raoh's heart" (Exod. 7: 3). "And Jehovah 
hardened the heart of Pharaoh" (Exod. 9: 12). 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 305 

And again, " Pharaoh hardened his [own] 
heart" (Exod. 8: 32). And yet again, without 
saying who was the cause of the evil doing, 
" Pharaoh's heart was hardened " (Exod. 7: 22). 
These and other seeming contradictions in 
God's Word, and these hopeless inconsistencies 
in man's methods of thought and statement, are 
but added illustrations of the different aims and 
purposes of the two documents. God's Word 
suggests to man truths about God that cannot 
be expressed or denned in human language. 
Man's systems ^of theology are at the best 
attempts to show that man understands and can 
explicitly and accurately explain God's plan and 
purposes with reference to creation and to cre- 
ated beings. They are vain human efforts to 
comprehend the incomprehensible, to explain 
the inexplicable, to fix limits to the illimitable, 
and to define in human words the indefinable 
characteristics of the spiritual, the infinite, 
the ineffable, and the eternal. Of course, 
the attempt is a hopeless one. God, on 
the other hand, suggests to man in human 
words in the Bible what will inform and guide 
him in his duties and dangers, his privileges and 
possibilities, and the enabling power and assist- 
ance he can have from God in God's service and 
in aiding those whom God loves and whom God 



306 Our Misunderstood Bible 

privileges man to aid. But God does not attempt 
to define to man in the Bible pages explicit char- 
acteristics and specific methods of God. For 
these cannot be made clear to man, even by God, 
while man is finite and God is ever infinite, and 
while man is in time, which changes and passes 
away, and God is in eternity, which is ever the 
same, and which is incomprehensible to finite man 
while he is in time. 

God is more and vaster and better than any 
definition or description of him as given to man 
in any human system of doctrine. With the pass- 
ing ages we grow beyond some conceptions of 
God and of his ways which our fathers held to 
and prized, but we have not given up enough of 
these errors so long as we cling to the thought 
that there is or has been Time, or its measures 
or uses, in Eternity, or with God. , 

After the above was written, and was read by 
the Rev. Professor Dr. E. T. Bartlett, of the 
Episcopal Divinity School, of Philadelphia, he 
called the writer's attention to St. Augustine on 
this very subject. In his De Doctrina Christiana 
(Bk. I, ch. VI), written A. D. 397, St. Augustine, 
after speaking of the Trinity in metaphysical 
terms and definitions, as compared to the Atha- 
nasian creed, says: 

" Have we said anything or given utterance to 



Can Man Define Infinite Truth 307 

anything worthy of God? On the contrary, I 
feel only that I have wished to speak. But if I 
have spoken, it is not that which I wished to say. 
Whence do I know this, except because God is 
ineffable? But that which has been said by me, 
if it were ineffable, could not have been said. 
And also for this reason God may not be said 
even to be ineffable, viz., because when even that 
is said, something is said. And then an inde- 
scribable conflict of words follows, because if 
that is ineffable which cannot be said, then it is 
not ineffable because it can be at least said to be 
ineffable. This conflict of words is avoided by 
silence rather than reconciled by speech. And 
yet when nothing worthy of God can be said, 
nevertheless he allows the human voice to render 
its service, and wishes us to rejoice in his praise 
with our words. For thence it is that he is even 
called God (Deus). For it is not really in the 
sound of those two syllables that he himself be- 
comes known; but nevertheless all who know 
the Latin language are moved by the sound of 
those syllables to think of a nature that is most 
excellent and immortal. " 
Again St. Augustine says : 
" God is known better by not knowing." 
" Of him the soul has no knowledge, except 
knowing that it does not know him." 



308 Our Misunderstood Bible 

" And what shall we do ? Shall we be silent ? 
Would that that were permitted ! For peradven- 
ture by being silent some thought might be 
framed worthy of a subject ineffable." 

St. Augustine might indeed seem almost as 
careless, even if not unsound, in precise theolog- 
ical statements, as the Bible. 



SCRIPTURE INDEX 



GENESIS 

TEXT PAGE 
I : 26 247 

i : 26, 27 267 

2:3 Ill 

2:7 266 

3 : iS 53 

12 : 1-4 53 

15 : 1-6 53 

15 : 6 283 

17 : 14 263 

18 : 17-19 53 

29-31 241 

29 : 20 215 

31 : 44-53 2 42 

3 1 '• 49 ai i 2 4 2 

49 : 10 240 

EXODUS 

7:3 304 

8 : 32 305 

9 '• I2 3°4 

12 : 49 51 

13 : 2 no 

19 : 10, 11 no 

19 : 14 no 

19 : 23 in 

20 : 6 63 

23 : 4, 5 5i 

28 : 41 no 

29 : 27 in 

29 • 43, 44 " J 

30 : 12 262 

40 : 11 in 

LEVITICUS 

8 : 30 no 

17 : 14 262 

19 : 17, 18 51 

19 : 18 31 

*9 : 34 51 

20 : 7 no 

26 : 28 239 

27 : 14-22 112 



NUMBERS 

TEXT PAGE 

5 : 22 288, 289 

7:1 in 

11 : 18 in 

20 : 13 112 

31 : 28 263 

31 : 50 262 

DEUTERONOMY 

5 : 12 in 

6:4-9 50 

6^5 3 1 

7 : 7> 8,13 53 

25 : 15 126 

27 : 1 1-26 289 

32 : 51 112 

JOSHUA 

3:5 i" 

7 : 13 no 

1 SAMUEL 

16 : 5 in 

17 : 45 66 

18 : 10 304 

19 : 20 ...... 249 

2 SAMUEL 

12 ; 7 233 

22 : 11 256 

1 KINGS 
12 : 14 . . 236, 237, 238 

1 CHRONICLES 

12 : 38 126 

15 : 12, 14 in 

2 CHRONICLES 

20 : 7 53 

29 : 5 in 

NEHEMIAH 
3:1 .. # .... in 

13 : 22 in 



JOB 

TEXT PAGE 

1 : J 4 249 

2:4 26, 262 

32 : 8 264 

PSALMS 

4:5 153 

J 7 : 13-15 269 

17 : 15 268 

18 : 10 256 

27 : 6 153 

27 : 10 54 

3* : 5 264 

3 1 : 19 54 

34 : 22 263 

35 : 9 263 

5 1 : 5 178, 179 

5 1 : *7 ^53 

63 : 1, 3 54 

94 : 12 237 

103 : 8, 10, 12, 13 . . 54 

107 : x 5 54 

118 : 1 54 

119 : 126-128 ... 63 
145 > 3 3°4 

PROVERBS 

6:6 34 

13 : 24 14, 239 

16 : 2 265 

18 : 10 ...... 66 

23 : 20 13 

23 : 31 34 

25 : 21, 22 51 

z6 : 4 12 

26 : 5 12 

ECCLESIASTES 

3 : 21 266 

12 ; 7 266 

ISAIAH 

1 : "-*7 x 53 

26 : 9 264 

28 : 9 180 

309 



310 



Our Misunderstood Bible 



TEXT PAGE 

40 : 30, 31 215 

42 : 1 267 

43 : i-3 55 

45 : 6, 7 304 

49 : J 5 ...... 55 

55 : 3 263 

63 •• 16 55 

64 : 6 21 

66 : J 3 55 

JEREMIAH 

3:4^ 55 

28 : 6 290 

3i : 3 56 

EZEKIEL 

10 : 14 255 

18 : 31 265 

20 : 41 112 

28 : 15 126 

34 : 31 56 

36 : 23 112 

HOSEA 
2 : 23 56 

JOEL 

2 : 15, 16 no 

MICAH 
6 : 7> 8 63 

ZEPHANIAH 

3 : 17 • • .... 56 

ZECHARIAH 

2:8 56 

10 : n 240 

MALACHI 

1:2 56 

2 : 10 56 

2 : 15 176 

3 : 16, 17 ..... 56 
4:6 176 

MATTHEW 

5:8 119 

5 : " 69 

5 = T 7"2o 57 

5 : 18 288 

5 : 38 25 

5 : 43-48 128 

5 : 48 125 

6 : 22 123 



TEXT 

6 : 24 . 

7 : 21 . 

8 : 10 . 

9 : x 3 • 
7 • 



x 5 
17 

28 

39 

28-30 

29 

18 

15 

41, 42 

24 

26 
1-4 

3 

21 

22 

40 

*9 

23 

31-46 

32 

6 



PAGE 
123 

58 
288 

95 
229 
288 

69 

264 

69 
210 
211 
267 
82 
58 
130 
263 
181 
204 
127 

x 39 

31 

"3 

58 

58 

138 

276 



MARK 

3 : 28 288 

8 : 12 288 

4 : 12 82 

8 : 34 x 3° 

8 : 35 *4° 

9 : 17-25 203 

10 : 14 180 

10 : 15 204 

10 : 38 139 

12 : 32, 33 52 

12 : 33 63 

14 : 21 25 

15 : 21 138 

15 : 46 275 

16 : 6 276 

16 : 15 ...... 230 

LUKE 

4 : 24 288 

5 : 3i 95 

9 • 2 3 J 3Q 

7 : 2 4 249 

9 : 23, 24 140 

9 : 5i 249 

10 : 27 52 

10 : 28 52 

10 : 40 219 

10 : 41, 42 220 



TEXT PAGE 

12 : 37 288 

12 : 47 59 

14 : 26, 27 139 

16 : 15 37 

18 ; 17 124 

19 : 1Q 95 

22 : 32 81, 82 

23 : 26 138 

24 : 12 276 

24 : 27 30 

JOHN 

1 : 51 288 

3^3 9 2 

3:7 9 2 

3 : 16 6 4 

5:8 213 

5 •* *-*7 2 *3 

5 : 19 288 

6 : 26 288 

6 : 60 125 

6 : 63 25 

7 : 37 44 

7 : 39 7 2 

8 : 12 -45 

8 : 56 62 

8 : 58 62 

11 : 5 221 

11 : 44 275 

12 : 40 82 

14 : 13 6 5> 67 

14 : 14 66 

14 : 15, 21, 23, 24 . . 59 
14 : 16, 17 73 

14 : 20 66 

15 : 10, 14 59 

16 : 23, 24 65 

17 = ii- x 3 6 7 

17 : i7- J 9 "4 

19 : 17, 18 138 

20 : 6-8 276 

ACTS 

1:8 73 

2:4 74 

2 : 38 74 

2 : 39 . 182 

3 : 19 82 

4^8 74 

4 : 12 68 

5 : 32 74 

6:5 74 

8 : 26-40 232 

8 : 30, 31 ... . 24, 29 

9 : 31 ........ • 74 

10 : 44 75 



Scripture Index 



311 



TEXT PAGE 

" : 24 74 

J 3 : 9 74 

13 : 52 73 

19 : 2, 6 75 

28 : 27 82 

ROMANS 

2 ; 5-11 60 

3 : 3 1 60 

5 : 20 98, 177 

8 : 26, 27 76 

" : 33 295 

13 : 8, 10 63 

1 CORINTHIANS 

1 : 21 231 

2:11 265 

3 : J 6, 17 115 

4 : 10 69 

5:5 265 

6:3 248 

6 : 17 265 

7 : *4 "3 

7 : 34 265 

8 : 13 21 

13 : 2, 3 102 

14 : 16 288 

14 : 33 48 

15 : 21-23 2 7 2 

15 : 22 169 

15 : 35-44 273 

*5 : 51-54 27 2 

15 : 52 276 

2 CORINTHIANS 

1 : 20 288 

5 : 10, 11 60 

7:1 • 265 

9-7 146 

12 : 4 296 



GALATIANS 

TEXT PAGE 
4:6 76 

5 : 22, 23 76 

5 : 25 76 

6 : 2, 5 . . .... 13 

6 : 7 97 

EPHESIANS 

4 : 15 "7 

5 : 25-27 116 

PHILIPPIANS 

2:5 106 

2 : 12 103 

2 : 12, 13 106 

4 : "-13 *3 6 

COLOSSIANS 

2 : 21, 22 21 

3 : 22 34 

1 THESSALONIANS 

5 : 23 115,264 

5:6-8 10 

2 THESSALONIANS 

1 : 7-10 61 

1 TIMOTHY 

4 : 4, 5 "3 

2 TIMOTHY 

2 : 15 18 

3 : l6 > *7 20 

HEBREWS 

1 : 14 248 

2 : 11 113 

2 : 13 183, 185 

4 : 12 17 



TEXT PAGE 
5 : II, 12 18 

11 : 27 122 

12 : 5, 6 236 

12 : 7 236 

12 : 8 236 

12 : 14 114 

12 : 19 238 

JAMES 

1:8 123, 225 

2 : 20, 24, 26 ... . 61 
3:2 127 

1 PETER 

1 : 12 248 

2 PETER 

2:9 61 

2 : 10 265 

3:8 300 

3 : 15, 16 18 

3 : 18 117 

1 JOHN 

2 : 3, 4 61 

3 : 7, 8 61 

4 : 10, 11 64 

4 : 16 62 

5:3 62 

2 JOHN 

6 62 

REVELATION 

3 : 14 283 

14 : 9, 10 62 

19 : 20 62 

21 297 

21 : 8 62 

21 : 16 298 



APR 27 1907 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1606H 
(724)779-2111 



